Norton Rant

[Jeremy]

yea it protects your system from preforming

More like prevents.

[DigeratiPrime]

Anyone brave enough to test this out?

Norton Removal Tool

http://service1.symantec.com/SUPPORT/share...006031710323113

[Jeremy]

I've used that several times. It's one of the best programs out there!

Hey, is this a new version of the tool? The one I have doesn't remove 2007's version of Norton. Awesome!

Edited November 15, 2006 by Jeremy

[joshg678]

Yes it is the best ever, we use it every day at work.

[LeveL]

Kaspersky AV all the way.

The reason ---> highest detection rate.

Its really that simple.

You know when someone doesn't really know their stuff when they

call Norton Anti-Virus "Anti Norton Virus". You know sometimes I

wish there was such a thing.

I used Norton "Systemworks" 2001 in 2001 and since then I ain't

touched it with a barge pole. I realised theres way better alternatives

like Symantec Corporate v8, v9, v10 (used them all, all are good) or

now Kaspersky AV, it wipes the floor with Norton.

Norton is like Mac Donalds, where Kaspersky is a piece of fine steak!

[Jeremy]

Level, Kaspersky doesn't have the highest detection rate. Proof of this can be reviewed on AV-Comparatives.org. However, detection rate isn't necessarily the most important factor when judging an anti-virus. AV-Comparatives will say this as well: The level of sophistication that exists in their scanning engines. Kaspersky and NOD32 as far as detection rate, GUI, memory usage, features, scanning efficiency and timing, are the two absolute best overall out of all anti-virus products. I've done the research and I've compared 18 products so far so I feel that is correct.

[noguru]

Level, Kaspersky doesn't have the highest detection rate. Proof of this can be reviewed on AV-Comparatives.org. However, detection rate isn't necessarily the most important factor when judging an anti-virus. AV-Comparatives will say this as well: The level of sophistication that exists in their scanning engines. Kaspersky and NOD32 as far as detection rate, GUI, memory usage, features, scanning efficiency and timing, are the two absolute best overall out of all anti-virus products. I've done the research and I've compared 18 products so far so I feel that is correct.

All true, and I'am looking forward to your comparative. But I wonder about one thing. If Kaspersky has got such a sophisticated engine then why does it only catch 6 out of 10 polymorfic viruses ? AV comparatives state themselves that this test is a good measure for the ability to find difficult malware. Symantec an Avira are the only ones that fully pass this test. Thumbs up for Avira I would say, you can get that engine for free!

(btw. AVG and Avast, the other free ones, don't come close to Avira in all tests)

Edited November 18, 2006 by noguru

[Jeremy]

And realistically, what are the chances of getting a polymorphic virus? I said it before and I'll say it again, I've used Kaspersky on dozens of computers full of infections and it cleaned them out without breakiing a sweat.

[noguru]

And realistically, what are the chances of getting a polymorphic virus? I said it before and I'll say it again, I've used Kaspersky on dozens of computers full of infections and it cleaned them out without breakiing a sweat.

That was not the point. (But there is a reason why AV comparatives is testing this!)

Fact is that Kaspersky stays way behind the competition when it comes to polymorfic viruses. I was just wondering why.

[Jeremy]

Then go ask Kaspersky.

[Stead]

does this norten removal tool clean out the live update feature as well? I've noticed the uninstallers always seem to forget it, along with numerous other things that the good people at norten realise you want left on your computer, but since this program starts at startup i figured its worth being moreso annoyed, I haven't looked into it whatsoever and i have no machine to test it on, and no, i'm not installing norten on my to practise removing it, i feel i might just get peeved off.

[Jeremy]

does this norten removal tool clean out the live update feature as well?

Last time I used this, I'm pretty sure it did clean that out completely. I could always load Norton up in VMware and try, but I don't want my virtual machine to get sick.

[awergh]

i like that association with nortan and a sick virtual machine/computer

does it still come with livereg as well.

[awergh]

Either Safer Networking Ltd. or Symantec leaving the Anti Spyware Coalition... [link] 29. September 2006

From March 2005 to December 2005, Symantec labeled Spybot-S&D as incompatible to Norton Ghost, and endangering backups, with no reason given to us in 19 months now. Since October 2005, Norton Internet Security has told users that Spybot-S&D would be incompatible and they had to remove Spybot-S&D.

Eleven months later, Symantec has given us just one explanation that was mostly invented and not fitting. Even though Symantec again promised changes, they have now released Norton Internet Security 2007 which again urges the user to uninstall Spybot-S&D.

We would have loved to work with them to remove any incompatibility, but although they were eager to tell their customers about these so-called 'incompatibilities', even threats of legal action could not persuade Symantec to give us any details. Well, actually they promised they would send us details, but those promises haven't been fullfilled for nearly a year. Is Symantecs Quality Assurance department so bad that they can't either find the old reports or re-test?

Both of us are members of the ASC, the Anti Spyware Coalition, a group of anti-spyware companies working together - in theory. The ASC has discussed Best Practices for half a year now. Sadly, this seems to only affect practices against malware creators, while coalition members are allowed to fight each other as much as they want.

If we created spyware instead of anti-spyware, we probably would laugh various body parts at seeing how one anti-spyware application removes the other.

Arbitration by the ASC has only resulted in broken promises by Symantec.

We will therefore bring a motion in front of the ASC to expel Symantec for damaging the ASC through its practices of illegal improper competition and libel, resulting even in malware creators being able to spread their malware better. Should this motion be rejected by a majority of ASC members, we most likely leave this coalition as it would then appear that ASC is favoring libel as a proper way of competition.

If you think that anti-spyware companies should fight spyware creators instead of each other, please send an email to ASC members of your choice, found here, and/or to the ASC itself, at asc@cdt.org.

Following that, thinking on how we could stop Symantec, we have two options: taking expensive legal steps, or behaving the same way as Symantec, accepting the removal of a competitor as a "legit" step. Should we add detection for Norton Internet Security 2006 and 2007 as Malware or Possibly UnPopular Software (PUPS)?

Yes, detect NIS completely!

Yes, but detect only some harmless files to wake up people.

No, please waste our donations to go through legal channels, instead of using them to fight malware.

None of the above.

Please note that under ASCs definition, technology that is implemented in ways that impairs user control over material changes that affecs their system security, in other words software that reduces system security like NIS does, falls under the term Spyware (and Other Potentially Unwanted Technologies), so adding NIS to the detection would not be revenge, but a strict following of the ASC definitions.

We have started a poll in our forums where you can vote!

http://forums.spybot.info/showthread.php?t=7683

lots of complaining and ranting about nav/nis

[LLXX]

behaving the same way as Symantec, accepting the removal of a competitor as a "legit" step. Should we add detection for Norton Internet Security 2006 and 2007 as Malware or Possibly UnPopular Software (PUPS)?

Yes, detect NIS completely!

Yes, but detect only some harmless files to wake up people.

No, please waste our donations to go through legal channels, instead of using them to fight malware.

None of the above.

I'm quite sure that would get Symantec to wake up... not to mention other anti-malware software might start adopting the same path