News - Symantec security head says Antivirus "is dead"

[HEXUS]

Firm turns to minimising damage from breaches caused by hacks.

Read more.

[iranu]

I've always viewed Norton anitvirus/internet security as malware.

[ik9000]

I've always viewed Norton anitvirus/internet security as malware.

the 2008 version certainly was IIRC...

[ik9000]

Symantec is typically 2-3 years behind on developing the technology the company seeks to create, and is no longer a security leader but merely an eager follower. "They haven't been part of the thought-leader group for some time,"

Quite. I remember reading an article on this about 2 years ago either in PC Plus or PC Pro and how this would be the ways things would progress. I should have offered my services to Symantec as a "consultant" and made a packet by rehashing the article into a powerpoint and report. Sigh, riches lost...

[HMS_Victory]

Sounds like excuses to separate the new products from the existing anti virus and sell multiple products to people rather than just one

[LSG501]

Now I wonder if the lack of profit from their home AV software (business version is pretty good supposedly) has anything to do with just how rubbish it is....not to mention the fact that you need/used to pay to update the subscription after a year iirc. Seriously I've seen so many people complaining about Norton (and McAfee), especially trying to remove it it's no wonder people don't want to buy it... no idea why you can't just 'uninstall it' instead of needing ANOTHER program to remove it.

Personal experience of Norton....yes I had it a LONG time ago when I was new to computers was system hog, slow, pita to remove and needed to pay to update the av list after a year.... yeah I soon changed lol

[Whiternoise]

I've always viewed Norton anitvirus/internet security as malware.

It was a turd painted yellow and got in the way of every computer game ever. On the plus side it had top notch ad blocking even 6-8 years ago - right from the source. It would even kill the annoying video ads in MSN Messenger.

[dacads]

I've always viewed Norton anitvirus/internet security as malware.

It certainly was I remember removing it from a system and bam no more issues

[crossy]

Sounds like excuses to separate the new products from the existing anti virus and sell multiple products to people rather than just one

+1 on this.

I used to like NAV when that's all it was - virus scanner and firewall. Then they started adding a lot of "value add" (I wonder if this was about the time that Symantec took them over) and the product got slower and less useful. Crowning glory being when something got through that some freeware scanner picked up.

After that I switched to McAfee, but that's been in the same "bloated beyond use" level for a year or two, so I'm actively looking for something that's back to virus scanning and firewall only. Kaspersky looked good, and I hear conflicting opinions about Panda, AVG (which I have on my phone) and Avast. With two social network obsessed teens there's no way that I'm not having something to watch out (when I can't).

[wyte_w0lf]

I use avast and zone alarm. Both free and quite fuctional. Only issue is setting up zone alarm permissions on every new install ( black game screen and no inputs= go to desktop and allow permissions)

Used to use NAV. It is bloatware packaged as a poor service.

[sirtrouserpress]

I've always viewed Norton anitvirus/internet security as malware.

Willing to bet it was better than panda, glad I moved over to AVAST, may not block everything, but it seems to fix a hell of allot more than any premium service that I've ever used befor

[crossy]

Willing to bet it was better than panda, glad I moved over to AVAST, may not block everything, but it seems to fix a hell of allot more than any premium service that I've ever used befor

When I was looking for a McAfee replacement last year (didn't manage to find one in time to prevent auto-renew kicking in), I looked at Panda. Benchmarks seemed okay, then I found a lot of reports about it being near impossible to remove properly.

I use avast and zone alarm. Both free and quite fuctional. Only issue is setting up zone alarm permissions on every new install ( black game screen and no inputs= go to desktop and allow permissions)

Strangely enough I've used ZoneAlarm before - only switched away from them once they too started their "value add" nonsense. Just took a quick look (thanks for the reminder) and their paid products also have the usual backup etc, so no sale.

Avast, on the other hand is looking interesting. Anyone that has the cojones to say "A 10-year old Pentium 3 processor will do, with 128 MB RAM and 750 MB of hard-drive space. And now imagine the stellar performance with your new hardware!" on their website piques my curiosity. Had a quick look at AVG, looks a bit on the costly side - especially if you wanted their "full house" product where there's no "household" type deals available - so I'd be looking at about £200/year!

Maybe we need a QOTW on antimalware products? Basically "which would you recommend and why".

[Noxvayl]

At my old job I was asked to get 2 laptops working again after they had become too slow to operate. All I did was remove Norton 360 Security and they were fine again. Needless to say my boss didn't believe me until installing it again and finding the machine was too slow to use. I haven't used Norton software since the 90s and still refuse to use it now.

At the moment I have no 3rd party antivirus and firewall using Windows 8.1, left the standard features on. I do regular backups and can re-install my system if a problem occurs within a day so don't feel the need for any more security than what Microsoft offers. My family on the other hand use ESET Smart Security, I like it because it is very light on resources and has an excellent record for preventing infection rather than cleaning up the mess. I tried Kaspersky but they couldn't get on with the pop-ups it kept producing; I did tweak the settings but the initial barrage of pop-ups meant that they insisted on another Anti-Virus suite when renewal came up. So far ESET has been very good and I recommend it to family a friends that want anti-virus software.

[peterb]

Norton tools used to be a great analysis for DOS based systems after Peter Norton reverse engineered it. I can't remember if he developed an AV solution before Symantec bought the name - Symantec did have AV/security product.

However, Norton tools under Symantec morphed into truly bad bit of software which I thought could only make money by selling to OEMs.

[Jonj1611]

Your mean when Norton Disk Doctor could actually edit raw data rather than the glorified disk checker it became?

I have been a bit hit and miss with Norton, I used to uninstall it off everything a few years ago and then they seemed to get their act together, bloatness came down and it didn't impact the system as much, then it went down hill again, so haven't actually used it for a while.

But that article reads just like something delivered from the PR department :/

[valhar2000]

I work supporting an application my company develops and sells, and I hate, HATE, Norton (and McAfee). Whenever one of our customer's uses either of those, chances are very good that our software will fail because the AV blocks access to one of the application's files, and there often is no way to prevent that from happening.

With two social network obsessed teens there's no way that I'm not having something to watch out (when I can't).

I use a normal user account, and have configured UAC to ask for an Admin username and password whenever anything sensitive needs to be done. That, combined with Windows's default AV and firewall, has worked pretty well.