Alternative to Norton Internet Security?

> JJ wrote:

>> I have been using Norton Internet Security for
>> approximately 2 years and it has worked well in
>> protecting my system. I have net experienced
>> any viruses
>> or other unwanted downloads / attacks. However,
>> it seems
>> to cause a noticable slow down of my use of the
>> internet
>> when I move from web site to web site or even
>> from page
>> to page within a web site. Is there an
>> alternative security software/system
>> available that is as good (or better) at
>> protecting my
>> system but without the cost in system
>> performance?
>>
>> Thanks

>
> Avast. It's free.
>
> Norton was good when Peter Norton was the owner.
> Symantec
> has been milking his good name ever since and
> providing a
> resource hungry pig.
> Alias

You're out in left field with your information:
The "bloat" et al started long before the Symantec
purchase and did create some problems with less
than stellar machine specs. Even given that, the
size of the Norton products footprints are falling
now with each new version as the code becomes
tighter and cleaner. At least get your facts
straight before you use them in a post.

Long time Norton user

Twayne wrote:

>> JJ wrote:

>>> I have been using Norton Internet Security for
>>> approximately 2 years and it has worked well in
>>> protecting my system. I have net experienced
>>> any viruses
>>> or other unwanted downloads / attacks. However,
>>> it seems
>>> to cause a noticable slow down of my use of the
>>> internet
>>> when I move from web site to web site or even
>>> from page
>>> to page within a web site. Is there an
>>> alternative security software/system
>>> available that is as good (or better) at
>>> protecting my
>>> system but without the cost in system
>>> performance?
>>>
>>> Thanks

>> Avast. It's free.
>>
>> Norton was good when Peter Norton was the owner.
>> Symantec
>> has been milking his good name ever since and
>> providing a
>> resource hungry pig.
>> Alias

>
> You're out in left field with your information:
> The "bloat" et al started long before the Symantec
> purchase and did create some problems with less
> than stellar machine specs.

Bullshit.

> Even given that, the
> size of the Norton products footprints are falling
> now with each new version as the code becomes
> tighter and cleaner. At least get your facts
> straight before you use them in a post.
>
> Long time Norton user

You mean long time Norton loser. I first used Norton with Win 3.1 on a
386 when Peter owned it back in 92 and I do -- you don't -- know what
I'm talking about. You've been using it so long that you think the bloat
is normal.

Alias

Twayne

Not to start anything here but I tend to agree with what Alias has posted. I used
Norton when Peter Norton was still at the helm and the footprint of his Norton was
almost minimal compared to that of today's Symantec version. And not leave out that
it was then an excellent product.

--
Peter

Please Reply to Newsgroup for the benefit of others
Requests for assistance by email can not and will not be acknowledged.

"Twayne" <nobody@devnull.spamcop.net> wrote in message
news:uTZs0RxeJHA.4180@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...

>> JJ wrote:

>>> I have been using Norton Internet Security for
>>> approximately 2 years and it has worked well in
>>> protecting my system. I have net experienced any viruses
>>> or other unwanted downloads / attacks. However, it seems
>>> to cause a noticable slow down of my use of the internet
>>> when I move from web site to web site or even from page
>>> to page within a web site. Is there an alternative security software/system
>>> available that is as good (or better) at protecting my
>>> system but without the cost in system performance?
>>>
>>> Thanks

>>
>> Avast. It's free.
>>
>> Norton was good when Peter Norton was the owner. Symantec
>> has been milking his good name ever since and providing a
>> resource hungry pig.
>> Alias

>
> You're out in left field with your information: The "bloat" et al started long
> before the Symantec purchase and did create some problems with less than stellar
> machine specs. Even given that, the size of the Norton products footprints are
> falling now with each new version as the code becomes tighter and cleaner. At
> least get your facts straight before you use them in a post.
>
> Long time Norton user
>
>

JJ said this on 1/20/2009 7:26 AM:

> I have been using Norton Internet Security for approximately 2 years and it
> has worked well in protecting my system. I have net experienced any viruses
> or other unwanted downloads / attacks. However, it seems to cause a noticable
> slow down of my use of the internet when I move from web site to web site or
> even from page to page within a web site.
>
> Is there an alternative security software/system available that is as good
> (or better) at protecting my system but without the cost in system
> performance?
>
> Thanks

AVG 8.0 (don't load the link scanner) is what I use. Its free.
Other have suggested NOD32
Avira is another I hear talk about.
Avast was already noted and I've tried it. No good/bad opinion, just
fell back to AVG for some reason, probably familiarity.

On Tue, 20 Jan 2009 04:26:01 -0800, JJ wrote:

> I have been using Norton Internet Security for approximately 2 years and it
> has worked well in protecting my system. I have net experienced any viruses
> or other unwanted downloads / attacks. However, it seems to cause a noticable
> slow down of my use of the internet when I move from web site to web site or
> even from page to page within a web site.
>
> Is there an alternative security software/system available that is as good
> (or better) at protecting my system but without the cost in system
> performance?

Yes.
Do this:
1.The Norton Removal Tool uninstalls all Norton
2008/2007/2006/2005/2004/2003 products and Norton 360 from your computer.
http://service1.symantec.com/SUPPORT...05033108162039

2.For the average homeuser, the Windows Firewall in XP does a fantastic job
at its core mission and is really all you need if you have an 'real-time'
anti-virus program, [another firewall on your router or] other edge
protection like SeconfigXP and practise Safe-Hex.
The windows firewall deals with inbound protection and therefore does not
give you a false sense of security. Best of all, it doesn't implement lots
of nonsense like pretending that outbound traffic needs to be monitored.

Activate and utilize the Win XP built-in Firewall; Uncheck *all* Programs
and Services under the Exception tab.

Windows XP: How to turn on your firewall.
http://www.microsoft.com/protect/com...rewall/xp.mspx

Deconstructing Common Security Myths.
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/tec...s/default.aspx
Scroll down to:
"Myth: Host-Based Firewalls Must Filter Outbound Traffic to be Safe."

Exploring the windows Firewall.
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/tec...l/default.aspx
"Outbound protection is security theater—it’s a gimmick that only gives the
impression of improving your security without doing anything that actually
does improve your security."

3.Seconfig XP 1.0
http://seconfig.sytes.net/
(http://www.softpedia.com/progDownloa...oad-39707.html)
Seconfig XP is able configure Windows not to use TCP/IP as transport
protocol for NetBIOS, SMB and RPC, thus leaving TCP/UDP ports 135, 137-139
and 445 (the most exploited Windows networking weak point) closed.

4.Avira AntiVir® Personal - FREE Antivirus
http://www.free-av.com/
(The free version won't scan your emails.)
Why You Don't Need Your Anti-Virus Program to Scan Your E-Mail
http://thundercloud.net/infoave/tuto...ning/index.htm
Ensure your e-mail program is configured to display e-mail messages in
'Plain Text' only.
You may wish to consider removing the 'AntiVir Nagscreen'
http://www.elitekiller.com/files/dis...ntivir_nag.htm

5.Windows Defender - Free
http://www.microsoft.com/athome/secu...e/default.mspx
WD monitors the start-registry and hooks registers/files to prevent spyware
and worms to install to the OS.
Interesting reading:
http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,136195/article.html
"...Windows Defender did excel in behavior-based protection, which detects
changes to key areas of the system without having to know anything about
the actual threat."

6.On-demand scanners
Malwarebytes© Corporation - Anti-Malware
http://www.malwarebytes.org/mbam/program/mbam-setup.exe
--and--
SuperAntispyware - Free
http://www.superantispyware.com/down...NTISPYWAREFREE

7.Routinely practice Safe-Hex.
http://www.claymania.com/safe-hex.html
Hundreds Click on 'Click Here to Get Infected' Ad
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,2132447,00.asp

Good luck

Kayman wrote:

>
> 5.Windows Defender - Free
> http://www.microsoft.com/athome/secu...e/default.mspx
> WD monitors the start-registry and hooks registers/files to prevent spyware
> and worms to install to the OS.
> Interesting reading:
> http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,136195/article.html
> "...Windows Defender did excel in behavior-based protection, which detects
> changes to key areas of the system without having to know anything about
> the actual threat."

Caveat: you gotta install spyware (WGA/N) from Microsoft to download
Defender.

Alias

> On Tue, 20 Jan 2009 04:26:01 -0800, JJ wrote:

>

>> I have been using Norton Internet Security for
>> approximately 2 years and it has worked well in
>> protecting my system. I have net experienced
>> any viruses
>> or other unwanted downloads / attacks. However,
>> it seems
>> to cause a noticable slow down of my use of the
>> internet
>> when I move from web site to web site or even
>> from page
>> to page within a web site.
>>
>> Is there an alternative security
>> software/system
>> available that is as good (or better) at
>> protecting my
>> system but without the cost in system
>> performance?

>
> Yes.
> Do this:
> 1.The Norton Removal Tool uninstalls all Norton
> 2008/2007/2006/2005/2004/2003 products and
> Norton 360
> from your computer.
> http://service1.symantec.com/SUPPORT...05033108162039

True. Caveat: It removes ALL Symantec programs on
any given computer. So if you have Ghost for
instance, it's going to uninstall that too and
you'll have to reinstall it.

>
> 2.For the average homeuser, the Windows Firewall
> in XP
> does a fantastic job at its core mission and is
> really
> all you need if you have an 'real-time'
> anti-virus
> program, [another firewall on your router or]
> other edge
> protection like SeconfigXP and practise
> Safe-Hex.
> The windows firewall deals with inbound
> protection and
> therefore does not give you a false sense of
> security.
> Best of all, it doesn't implement lots of
> nonsense like
> pretending that outbound traffic needs to be
> monitored.

MS's firewall was provided to assiste people in
getting online to get updated and install various
protection programs until it could be refit with a
better firewall. It's a minimal firewall and
nowhere does it pretend to be a turn-key solution.

Outbound traffic should be monitored because of
the several sources of malware possible that can
bypass detectors:
-- Such as, the use of inadvertantly downloaded
and installed app containing a virus/trojan/worm
came with it, unbeknownst to the user, and then
said program goes ahead and tries to send out your
address book, financial info, etc. etc. etc..
There is a lot of malicious stuff that AV and
spyware stuff won't catch, spyware isn't detected
by AV very well, and most often until it activates
nothing on your machine will recognize it.
Especially the 'droppers'.
-- -- Other sources of outgoing malware that may
come from:
-- ANY floppy/CD/DVD provided by anyone that
isn't fully security aware, and which software
will seek the internet connection.
-- No way to prevent all or any executable from
"calling home" since there is no outgoing
monitoring.
-- Anything from any unsafe source in the list
above and via any other method.
-- No stealth; drive-bys will see lots of your
ports as being there, listening, AND responsive.
Maybe drive-bys, knowing the pitfalls of the IE
firewall will even shoot probes at a machine
blindly, just to see if it responds, and the MS
firewall WILL let them respond. All that's needed
is your IP, which is available in so many places
it's almost pitiful; besides, drive-bys target
entire IP ranges, and IP at a time, looking for
any response and if they get one, guess what?
Everything on your machine becomes an open book to
them. You licensed software, financial/bank
information, ss no., etc..

Note the age of some of the provided links; things
have changed a lot over the last few years.

HTH

Twayne

>
> Activate and utilize the Win XP built-in
> Firewall;
> Uncheck *all* Programs and Services under the
> Exception
> tab.
>
> Windows XP: How to turn on your firewall.
> http://www.microsoft.com/protect/com...rewall/xp.mspx
>
> Deconstructing Common Security Myths.
> http://www.microsoft.com/technet/tec...s/default.aspx
> Scroll down to:
> "Myth: Host-Based Firewalls Must Filter Outbound
> Traffic
> to be Safe."

This one is insterstingly stupid: It suggests
having to OK a connection every time, a la VISTA's
security! Fact is, a firewall "learns" your
surfing/mailing habits: You tell it OK, Allow
This once, and you'll never see it again. Takes
maybe a week of a few such interruptions, and then
anything it asks about will be foreign. MS should
know better!

It also says most users ignore the outgoing
anyway. Well, aside from it being untrue, it's
not true. If it's asking to go somewhere, you
didn't ask to go anywhere, and don't recognize the
name, say NO a couple times and see what happens,
before you tell it to Always do that. No big deal
when you consider what you're going to get out of
it, as mentioned above.

It also says it's only effective on already
infected computers and then the damage is already
done. So, I guess it wouldn't do anyone any good
to prevent it from happening again, huh? Outgoing
firewall will catch it, and that spam some hacker
is sending out using your machine as a bot could
be stopped again with the firewall. It's an
inane comment.
If it's good for an already infected machine,
then, once a machine should become infected with
something new, wouldn't it be effective then too?
And the damage not even be done in the first place
hopefully? That's a lot better than ignoring it!

>
> Exploring the windows Firewall.
> http://www.microsoft.com/technet/tec...l/default.aspx
> "Outbound protection is security theater-it's a
> gimmick
> that only gives the impression of improving your
> security
> without doing anything that actually does
> improve your
> security."

Vista, well, what can I say? Firewalls are the
least of the problem with a default setup Vista
machine.

>
> 3.Seconfig XP 1.0
> http://seconfig.sytes.net/
> (http://www.softpedia.com/progDownloa...oad-39707.html)
> Seconfig XP is able configure Windows not to use
> TCP/IP
> as transport protocol for NetBIOS, SMB and RPC,
> thus
> leaving TCP/UDP ports 135, 137-139 and 445 (the
> most
> exploited Windows networking weak point) closed.

Sounds good. Until you want some of the free tech
support offered to you from various sites.

>
> 4.Avira AntiVir® Personal - FREE Antivirus
> http://www.free-av.com/
> (The free version won't scan your emails.)
> Why You Don't Need Your Anti-Virus Program to
> Scan Your
> E-Mail
> http://thundercloud.net/infoave/tuto...ning/index.htm
> Ensure your e-mail program is configured to
> display
> e-mail messages in 'Plain Text' only.
> You may wish to consider removing the 'AntiVir
> Nagscreen'
> http://www.elitekiller.com/files/dis...ntivir_nag.htm
>
> 5.Windows Defender - Free
> http://www.microsoft.com/athome/secu...e/default.mspx
> WD monitors the start-registry and hooks
> registers/files
> to prevent spyware and worms to install to the
> OS.
> Interesting reading:
> http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,136195/article.html
> "...Windows Defender did excel in behavior-based
> protection, which detects changes to key areas
> of the
> system without having to know anything about the
> actual
> threat."

Windows Defender is probably OK but too
specialized IMO. I've had it installed for over a
year now and it's never found anything even though
it's the first thing run.

>
> 6.On-demand scanners
> Malwarebytes© Corporation - Anti-Malware
> http://www.malwarebytes.org/mbam/program/mbam-setup.exe

MalwareBytes is only OK; I don't like it because
it throws false hits on any install program that
may be located in any directory it doesn't expect
one to be in. It doesn't actually check to see if
the setup.exe is malicious or not: it depends
entirely on where the setup.exe is located. Not
effective, and could wipe out useful program
setups the user won't realize until they come to
try to use it again some time later.
Check their forums: Lots of info there on this
one: They're even asking users to send them info
on the false hits so they can "improve their
software" as opposed to writing the code properly.

> --and--
> SuperAntispyware - Free
> http://www.superantispyware.com/down...NTISPYWAREFREE

No experience with this one. No problems AFAIK.

>
> 7.Routinely practice Safe-Hex.
> http://www.claymania.com/safe-hex.html
> Hundreds Click on 'Click Here to Get Infected'
> Ad
> http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,2132447,00.asp

Definitely recommended. This alone can cure the
majority of problems with security.

IMO WinPatrol is one of the best apps one can
have. It asks permission before it lets ANY
program run that hasn't run before, can replaces
the Services editor, and monitors in real time
with a very small footprint. Many features, some
of which are not for the beginner.

HTH,

Twayne

>
> Good luck

On Tue, 20 Jan 2009 21:34:00 +0700, Kayman wrote:

> On Tue, 20 Jan 2009 04:26:01 -0800, JJ wrote:
>

>> I have been using Norton Internet Security for approximately 2 years and it
>> has worked well in protecting my system. I have net experienced any viruses
>> or other unwanted downloads / attacks. However, it seems to cause a noticable
>> slow down of my use of the internet when I move from web site to web site or
>> even from page to page within a web site.
>>
>> Is there an alternative security software/system available that is as good
>> (or better) at protecting my system but without the cost in system
>> performance?

>
> Yes.
> Do this:
> 1.The Norton Removal Tool uninstalls all Norton
> 2008/2007/2006/2005/2004/2003 products and Norton 360 from your computer.
> http://service1.symantec.com/SUPPORT...05033108162039
>
> 2.For the average homeuser, the Windows Firewall in XP does a fantastic job
> at its core mission and is really all you need if you have an 'real-time'
> anti-virus program, [another firewall on your router or] other edge
> protection like SeconfigXP and practise Safe-Hex.
> The windows firewall deals with inbound protection and therefore does not
> give you a false sense of security. Best of all, it doesn't implement lots
> of nonsense like pretending that outbound traffic needs to be monitored.
>
> Activate and utilize the Win XP built-in Firewall; Uncheck *all* Programs
> and Services under the Exception tab.
>
> Windows XP: How to turn on your firewall.
> http://www.microsoft.com/protect/com...rewall/xp.mspx
>
> Deconstructing Common Security Myths.
> http://www.microsoft.com/technet/tec...s/default.aspx
> Scroll down to:
> "Myth: Host-Based Firewalls Must Filter Outbound Traffic to be Safe."
>
> Exploring the windows Firewall.
> http://www.microsoft.com/technet/tec...l/default.aspx
> "Outbound protection is security theater—it’s a gimmick that only gives the
> impression of improving your security without doing anything that actually
> does improve your security."
>
> 3.Seconfig XP 1.0
> http://seconfig.sytes.net/
> (http://www.softpedia.com/progDownloa...oad-39707.html)
> Seconfig XP is able configure Windows not to use TCP/IP as transport
> protocol for NetBIOS, SMB and RPC, thus leaving TCP/UDP ports 135, 137-139
> and 445 (the most exploited Windows networking weak point) closed.
>
> 4.Avira AntiVir® Personal - FREE Antivirus
> http://www.free-av.com/
> (The free version won't scan your emails.)
> Why You Don't Need Your Anti-Virus Program to Scan Your E-Mail
> http://thundercloud.net/infoave/tuto...ning/index.htm
> Ensure your e-mail program is configured to display e-mail messages in
> 'Plain Text' only.
> You may wish to consider removing the 'AntiVir Nagscreen'
> http://www.elitekiller.com/files/dis...ntivir_nag.htm
>
> 5.Windows Defender - Free
> http://www.microsoft.com/athome/secu...e/default.mspx
> WD monitors the start-registry and hooks registers/files to prevent spyware
> and worms to install to the OS.
> Interesting reading:
> http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,136195/article.html
> "...Windows Defender did excel in behavior-based protection, which detects
> changes to key areas of the system without having to know anything about
> the actual threat."
>
> 6.On-demand scanners
> Malwarebytes© Corporation - Anti-Malware
> http://www.malwarebytes.org/mbam/program/mbam-setup.exe
> --and--
> SuperAntispyware - Free
> http://www.superantispyware.com/down...NTISPYWAREFREE
>
> 7.Routinely practice Safe-Hex.
> http://www.claymania.com/safe-hex.html
> Hundreds Click on 'Click Here to Get Infected' Ad
> http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,2132447,00.asp
>
> Good luck

In addition to my post with respect to firewall application (specifically
Outbound Filtering), please read this link in its entirety...

Managing the Windows Vista Firewall - How Much Security Can Outbound
Filtering Provide?
http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/m.../cc510323.aspx

....and heed the advice provided by experts (the ones who know the innards
of the WinXP operating system!

Happy reading