Phishing filters

The Phishing filter in Norton 360 coexists quite happily alongside IE7
filter.
I just told Norton not to keep reminding me that it wasn't the default
filter.
When I go to each website I can see the IE7 filter scanning (and staying
green so far !)
while the Norton filter seems to work also.
What difference the Norton filter would make if it was the default I don't
know
(though I suspect it would merely turn the IE7 one off)
Of course this only applies to 32bit IE7. If I use 64bit IE7 then the
Norton filter doesn't load anyway.
I can't vouch for other third parties, though I would expect the result to
be the same.
I must admit I haven't been to any other than "green" sites so what would
happen if it was a dodgy
site and both tried to warn at the same time ?
As to comparative effectiveness. How to qunatify that?
They both seem to work quickly, and efficiently. Impossible to say how
accurate they are but
I would expect them to be a decent line of defence.
Just don't expect them to be 100% as that is not reasonable.
Probably not any discernable difference betweem them.


I know you didn't ask about Windows Defender but it is relevant to the
above.
I run Norton 360 with spyware checking on, and have Defender installed but
not turned on.
I still run Defender if I want to use its other features (and it doesn't
seem to cause any problems)
and then turn it off afterwards.

My personal take on potential conflicts with rival software is that they
encourage you to turn other peoples software off just to cover their own
backsides. Its simple, just try it and see what happens !


Phypps



"Rolando E Creagh, MD FACS" <recreaghmd@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:OLE$6RplHHA.568@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...

>I had no idea my simple questions required advance calculus response. Sorry
>I strain your minds.
> Thanks
>
> "Rolando E Creagh, MD FACS" <recreaghmd@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:O8gETHRlHHA.3264@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...

>> Can I assume that you should not have two (or more) phishing filters
>> active simultaneously?
>> How does IE filter stack against the 3rd party type?
>> Grateful for you opinion
>>
>> --
>> R. E. CREAGH, MD FACS
>> Heartburn Center DM
>> Heartburn! WHY!
>>

>
>

"Rolando E Creagh, MD FACS" <recreaghmd@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:O8gETHRlHHA.3264@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...

> Can I assume that you should not have two (or more) phishing filters
> active simultaneously?
> How does IE filter stack against the 3rd party type?
> Grateful for you opinion
>
> --
> R. E. CREAGH, MD FACS
> Heartburn Center DM
> Heartburn! WHY!

What you could look at is the phishing filter "look up" service. You should
be able to determine the service in each case and then do some research.
For instance, Opera browser 9.2 includes a phishing filter which uses a
service called "TrustWatch, powered by GeoTrust". Another phishing filter I
have used is the Netcraft Toolbar which is so slow to verify sites that it
is effectively useless most of the time. In my experience the IE filter can
also be quite slow. Since a phishing filter must connect to and check a
database every time you visit a new page this adds overhead to browsing.
Regarding multiple filters, you would just have to try it and see how it
impacted performance. Hope this helps to answer your question.

Thanks for both responses. The question and reality is we are spending a
great deal of our CPU functioning capacity, running stay&run residents
programs for the sake of activities, not of our primary interest. And this
is a shame.
In a recent comparison, Netcraft Toolbar is found as the best. Personally I
have no experience with it. I would hope that on all those dire programs,
they would try to be as transparent and unobtrusive with minimal footprint
as possible. Norton certainly is not such panacea. Perhaps someone in the
near future could use a 4, 8 or more core CPU and dedicate just one (and
only one) of them to exclusively run all that garbage, since I am sure that
things are not going to get easier, simpler or safer.
In the mean time I will follow your suggestion and try simultaneously the
IE7 and Trend filters in those computers with sufficient MHz. Perhaps even
more, as it seems that all new programs want to have every single
protection; i.e./ wait for the new Ad-Aware.
Thanks again for the responses.
Cheers

"Victek" <abc@xyz.com> wrote in message
news:ekAT7OzlHHA.3264@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...

>
>
> "Rolando E Creagh, MD FACS" <recreaghmd@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:O8gETHRlHHA.3264@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...

>> Can I assume that you should not have two (or more) phishing filters
>> active simultaneously?
>> How does IE filter stack against the 3rd party type?
>> Grateful for you opinion
>>
>> --
>> R. E. CREAGH, MD FACS
>> Heartburn Center DM
>> Heartburn! WHY!

> What you could look at is the phishing filter "look up" service. You
> should be able to determine the service in each case and then do some
> research. For instance, Opera browser 9.2 includes a phishing filter which
> uses a service called "TrustWatch, powered by GeoTrust". Another phishing
> filter I have used is the Netcraft Toolbar which is so slow to verify
> sites that it is effectively useless most of the time. In my experience
> the IE filter can also be quite slow. Since a phishing filter must
> connect to and check a database every time you visit a new page this adds
> overhead to browsing. Regarding multiple filters, you would just have to
> try it and see how it impacted performance. Hope this helps to answer
> your question.

Web pages are slow loading, even for a 2.6GHz. Probably because now it has
to got check two databases on line. It sucks.
Not recomended.

"Rolando E Creagh, MD FACS" <recreaghmd@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:OZzqiK2lHHA.3760@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...

> Thanks for both responses. The question and reality is we are spending a
> great deal of our CPU functioning capacity, running stay&run residents
> programs for the sake of activities, not of our primary interest. And this
> is a shame.
> In a recent comparison, Netcraft Toolbar is found as the best. Personally
> I have no experience with it. I would hope that on all those dire
> programs, they would try to be as transparent and unobtrusive with minimal
> footprint as possible. Norton certainly is not such panacea. Perhaps
> someone in the near future could use a 4, 8 or more core CPU and dedicate
> just one (and only one) of them to exclusively run all that garbage, since
> I am sure that things are not going to get easier, simpler or safer.
> In the mean time I will follow your suggestion and try simultaneously the
> IE7 and Trend filters in those computers with sufficient MHz. Perhaps even
> more, as it seems that all new programs want to have every single
> protection; i.e./ wait for the new Ad-Aware.
> Thanks again for the responses.
> Cheers
>
> "Victek" <abc@xyz.com> wrote in message
> news:ekAT7OzlHHA.3264@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...

>>
>>
>> "Rolando E Creagh, MD FACS" <recreaghmd@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:O8gETHRlHHA.3264@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...

>>> Can I assume that you should not have two (or more) phishing filters
>>> active simultaneously?
>>> How does IE filter stack against the 3rd party type?
>>> Grateful for you opinion
>>>
>>> --
>>> R. E. CREAGH, MD FACS
>>> Heartburn Center DM
>>> Heartburn! WHY!

>> What you could look at is the phishing filter "look up" service. You
>> should be able to determine the service in each case and then do some
>> research. For instance, Opera browser 9.2 includes a phishing filter
>> which uses a service called "TrustWatch, powered by GeoTrust". Another
>> phishing filter I have used is the Netcraft Toolbar which is so slow to
>> verify sites that it is effectively useless most of the time. In my
>> experience the IE filter can also be quite slow. Since a phishing filter
>> must connect to and check a database every time you visit a new page this
>> adds overhead to browsing. Regarding multiple filters, you would just
>> have to try it and see how it impacted performance. Hope this helps to
>> answer your question.

>
>