Talk:Norton AntiVirus/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Major edit

This article may not be factually accurate at it's present state; it has undergone major construction recently and is currently being merged with Norton Internet Security. TechOutsider (talk) 03:14, 1 March 2009 (UTC)TechOutsider

Main goal:

Reference the criticisms. I've looked at the sources. The criticism about NAV and ZoneAlarm and SpySweeper was valid. Well, partially. Nowhere in the refenced article did the author mention SpySweeper. In the comments, however, users mentioned SpySweeper. Sorry, however that's not going to cut it. I am also trying to expand the criticisms section; right now it's just a bunch of 1 or 2 sentence paragraphs strung together. TechOutsider (talk) 00:47, 27 February 2009 (UTC)TechOutsider

“ Another incident occurred in February 2009, when the Norton 360 product was unable to detect and repair the Trojan.Brisv.A virus. Symantec customer service addressed this problem via chat, first, by running through a pre-written script for Trojan viruses. Symantec did not answer any pointed questions and immediately assessed a $99 charge for removal of the virus. Symantec telephone customer service read from the same script, and assessed that the virus was "attacking bank accounts" via the consumer computer. The Trojan.Brisv.A virus, in fact, attaches to media files. Customer service could have been more informed and less quick to assess fees. ”

I found a related thread in the Norton forums. However, I could not find any information about Symantec's support, or lack of support. The user claimed that he was redirected to the paid-for virus removal service, however quit the queue later.

There was one odd user (you?), however, which just complained and sat there, refusing to take the actions pointed out by the other members, which worked for other people. Please reference your information, specifically the part about Symantec's response, or it will be removed one week from today, Feburary 10, 2009, Eastern Time. TechOutsider (talk) 01:30, 11 February 2009 (UTC)TechOutsider

"If you choose not to update your subscription, after 90 days you get a pop-up reminder which is (a) always on top and (b) won't go away. Symantec customer service acknowledges this as both "a design feature" and a "friendly reminder". The feature occurs despite the user electing to disable alerts. Symantec also acknowledge the only way to get rid of this pop-up, which effectively disables your computer by obscuring nearly 1/4 of the screen, is to pay Symantec further money to upgrade or update subscription, or to uninstall software one has purchased the full rights to use."

Please check your sources. This has never happened to me and I have what .... 72 days of subscription left.

A screenshot would also be helpful TechOutsider (talk) 15:42, 7 February 2009 (UTC)TechOutsider

I will be removing the added section after one week from today, February 7, 2009, if the information is not referenced. TechOutsider (talk) 18:19, 7 February 2009 (UTC)TechOutsider

And how do you know if it was me that added all of those weasel words??? I'm not the only editor around TechOutsider (talk) 23:47, 2 February 2009 (UTC)TechOutsider

---

I have edited it to my satisfaction.

Argument 1&2: Violation of human rights; antivirus venders should not cooperate, it's "just another virus".

Argument 3&4: It will be used in accordance to the legal system established; Symantec aims to be able to detect intentionally mutated versions.

Argument and Counterargument. Both sides of the issue. Now its up to the reader to take sides. TechOutsider (talk) 02:13, 2 February 2009 (UTC)TechOutsider

And I finally, and firmly, established what Magic Lantern really isReading your rendition of the section, it seemed like a general keylogger used by the FBI to intercept all data. I cited 2 sources and clarified the actual purpose; to capture crypt. keys to encrypted documents. You cited two leading experts with one POV, I did the same with experts with another POV.

Future Edits ... keep in mind:

• Establish what ML is, which you did not do
• Establish both POVs as expressed in the 4 Arguments above, which you partially did TechOutsider (talk) 02:19, 2 February 2009 (UTC)TechOutsider

So how do you explain Mr. "I am not Symantec PR", the fact that you are removing such pieces of information as "for the covert monitoring and spying of data sent and received from a monitored computer" (as a valid expl. for "keylogger") and "claims that the Norton product line will specifically ignore the Magic Lantern trojan" (when the claim is backed up with a reference). The only reason I can think of is that it is questioning the integrity or reputation of (your?) company! Let readers decide for themselves based on FACTS without having your censorship attached to the articles! 78.146.210.199 (talk) 00:55, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Keylogger by itself is self explanatory. That is instance #1. Monitoring and spying of data. Instance #2 of definition of "keylogger". "monitored computer" Another instance of the def. of keylogger. You defined Keylogger 3 times in one sentence. TechOutsider (talk) 01:39, 2 February 2009 (UTC)TechOutsider

It looks like you just threw the article together. You didn't even properly link Magic Lantern. You linked it to the disambiguation page. TechOutsider (talk) 01:39, 2 February 2009 (UTC)TechOutsider

And there is an grammar error; "a invisible?"

I am thinking of the section starting out as:

"Symantec agreed to cooperate with the FBI on ways to preclde their antivirus software from detecting Magic Lantern, a government funded project focused on developing an "invisible" keylogger for the monitoring of data from a ....... "

I am not sure if victim would fit here. TechOutsider (talk) 01:43, 2 February 2009 (UTC)TechOutsider

Ok, so the purpose of ML is to capture the pass keys to encrypted files/docs on a person's computer. From what you put, it sounds like a general keylogger. TechOutsider (talk) 01:55, 2 February 2009 (UTC)TechOutsider

Other than this annoyance, is there anything else? TechOutsider (talk) 01:59, 2 February 2009 (UTC)TechOutsider

I noticed several recent edits made by 78.146.181.65 with notes attached, questioning if I was from Symantec's PR. Is there anything I overlooked; if so, please note it here TechOutsider (talk) 00:22, 2 February 2009 (UTC)TechOutsider

I see that it is related to the Government Keylogger. I find that "FBI cooperation" is a more accurate term. Any thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by TechOutsider (talk • contribs) 00:27, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

When are you ... 78.146.181.65, going to add the government keylogger information to McAfee articles? McAfee VirusScan. TechOutsider (talk) 00:50, 2 February 2009 (UTC)TechOutsider

Lots of pro norton propoganda getting into this article (almost as if their PR department wrote it)...including editing of certain phrases by some members to imply a positive (not neutral) viewpoint. Many marketing and PR links used to cite claims.... we should be presenting facts without hyping the software or implying how awesome it is or isn't. Phrases such as "protects a computer from malware while allowing for maximum performance for games"....would be a lot better off as "while allowing for improved performance for games compared to xxx" and other numerous, minor edits.

78.147.50.223 (talk) 22:07, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. As for Insight, numerous sources have claimed it is an industry first. I will be researching further by posting at the Norton and Wilders forums. TechOutsider (talk) 00:16, 1 February 2009 (UTC)TechOutsider

Editing Complete for NAV. Please comment. I will also be looking at the NIS article. TechOutsider (talk) 01:17, 1 February 2009

(UTC)TechOutsider

Editing Complete for NIS. Please comment. I will be taking a break. TechOutsider (talk) 01:52, 1 February 2009 (UTC)TechOutsider

I have removed all of the Ind. Assessments applying to Norton 2008 and earlier, thus thinning it down. TechOutsider (talk) 16:15, 1 February 2009 (UTC)TechOutsider

I am considering removing the advert tag. TechOutsider (talk) 16:15, 1 February 2009 (UTC)TechOutsider

I noticed several recent edits made by 78.146.181.65 with notes attached, questioning if I was from Symantec's PR. Is there anything I overlooked; if so, please note it here TechOutsider (talk) 00:22, 2 February 2009 (UTC)TechOutsider

I see that it is related to the Government Keylogger. I find that "FBI cooperation" is a more accurate term. Any thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by TechOutsider (talk • contribs) 00:27, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Enterprise and Consumer Products

Please keep corporate/enterprise info. regarding Norton out ... there is a Symantec Endpoint Protection Article TechOutsider (talk) 02:09, 1 February 2009 (UTC)TechOutsider

Change Picture

I will change the picture; it looks horrible and doesn't really stand out. TechOutsider (talk) 03:31, 1 February 2009 (UTC)TechOutsider

"(thereby defeating the purpose of the security software and violating the Human rights of the user (right to a private life)"

I think that was put a little strongly. Should I tone it down? TechOutsider (talk) 00:53, 1 February 2009 (UTC)TechOutsider

Norton Insight

Separate article? It is being incorporated in all of Symantec's consumer products; a separate article would only be appropriate ... TechOutsider (talk) 00:53, 6 January 2009 (UTC)TechOutsider

Article Rating

How would you rate this article? From an unbiased standpoint of course. TechOutsider (talk) 00:44, 23 December 2008 (UTC)TechOutsider

Seems pro-POV to me. My personal experience with Norton since the late 90's hasn't always been positive, and the majority of the other techs "That I know" don't usually have positive things to say either. I guess it's easy to use from a layman's point of view, but the overhead ... . Well, I don't want to knock the company, we're better off with them than without them I guess, and Peter Norton did GREAT things in the early years. It's better than start class, but not up to a GA by any means. Ched (talk) 03:10, 25 December 2008 (UTC) and I'd hardly rate it at a B class article .. MAYBE C at best, and even that is questionable Ched (talk) 03:19, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Pro-POV. You are free to edit it. 70.153.221.207 (talk) 03:57, 25 December 2008 (UTC)Tech0utsider

Activation

The article states that 2008 can only be activated via the Internet. This is only partially true. NAV2008 will attempt to activate via the Internet automatically 2 times, then if unsuccessful it will give a telephone number to call. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.178.10.40 (talk) 20:56, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

It should be said that the product key can be changed after it expires - that is if you buy the same exact version again. ShaggyDope (talk) 17:42, 17 August 2008 (UTC)ShaggyDope

Updates

Per the current entry "Symantec was the only vendor that provided virus definition updates on a weekly basis"

Is this statement still accurate?

Well, most antivirus programs/companies actually provide daily updates nowadays. Such programs/companies include ESET Nod32, AVG, and Kaspersky.Abedia (talk) 18:57, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Windows-centric article?

There is a Mac version, but this article focuses on the Windows version. I don't know much about the Mac version, so could someone else please write this stuff up? --M1ss1ontomars2k4 ^{(T | C | @)} 05:21, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

There is now a section on the Mac version. Stephenchou0722 00:47, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Symantec AntiVirus Corporate, etc.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Symantec AntiVirus is a completely different product, as far as I can tell. In fact, if you look on Symantec's website, there's a whole Symantec AntiVirus product line (e.g. Regular, Corporate, Enterprise, etc.).

Also, the scan engine in SAV is different from Norton. The file names are mostly the same, but SAV uses a lot less memory than Norton.

Another difference: Norton's detection rates are abysmal, while SAV's are excellent (IMHO).

I won't edit the article until I can get some confirmation on this, because I may be wrong.

--[rrrperson] 21:33, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Symantec and Norton are one and the same, Symantec is the company the bought Norton out some time ago.Raskolnikov 13:35, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah but Symantec AntiVirus and Norton AntiVirus really aren't related other than both being from the same parent company. The actual programs themselves are quite different. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.246.176.247 (talk • contribs) 02:02, April 17, 2007 (UTC)

I added the new version of this software to the article, 11.0, and put the new name of it in the main article Symantec Endpoint Protection As to the people above, I have seen the same effects of Norton vs. Symantec (corporate) in past years; even compared to the Norton Antivirus Corporate Edition, the retail consumer version is not very good in comparison. Abedia (talk) 18:55, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

As of August 2008 I'm tellign my clients to go away from Corporate - many malware programs are sneaking around it. XP Antivirus 2008 is one of them - it's not real AV per se, but I'm not 100% sure its completely malware. Endpoint Protection does fail where others do - these Scanners can find the viruses (ie.e in system32 or in Common Files) but they do not find the root problem files. "Root problem files" as I call it are usually in common files, temp, system32, program files, etc. (and ususally memory locked) - none of these AV programs get those root programs. I learned a bunch of techniques to clear them because the AV programs (Symantec is not the only one, Mcafee and the rest as well) are simply not cutting it. ShaggyDope

Contradiction

I receive virus definitions everyday from Norton AntiVirus. How can Symantec provide virus definitions on a weekly basis? --Mayfare 16:06, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Because this article is greatly misleading, for well over one year now NAV 2007 has mitigated many of the issues the product has been having, not to mention 2006 began recieving daily updates which was even more back in 2005. It needs an updated picture, it needs updated info, and it needs to reflect the current status of NAV, most of it is just leftover Norton bashing for the problems they had years ago. This article needs a cleanup and an update. =\ -- Charizard_Fire_God

The updates are whenever the engineers at Symantec get enough data together to warrant an update- like Mayfare above said most are daily (even more than once daily). The Endpoint Protection (SEP11, the newest corporate AV from Symantec) and Antivirus Corporate (the discontinued AV, it can still be purchased through non-profits such as Techsoup) do not necessarily update daily. ShaggyDope (talk) 17:32, 17 August 2008 (UTC)ShaggyDope

Hate article

This article is riddled with bias and anti-norton statements by users, which is why there's so many templates at the top.--Otterathome (talk) 01:32, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to second that; a lot of the information here is delivered in a highly negative manner, and is highly out of date. Jacotto (talk) 21:59, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Neccessary?

"Given that the company paid for the study, only positive results may have been published."

This sound more anti-nortan than actual facts. Since not many compaines would do 'free' studies and even then most companies would not publisher 'bad' results, if there are any. 58.179.71.117 (talk) 22:28, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

To the contrary, claims seem to parallel experience. For a company in its field, Norton seems to be remarkably inefficient in its internal performance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.15.101.172 (talk) 17:41, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

av comparitives did their own study and their results reflect what passmark said ...... explain that please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.154.218.91 (talk) 03:28, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Merge Rtvscan

Rtvscan is a short article that is unlikely to expand. Is anyone opposed to merging it into this page? DiggyG (talk) 22:02, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

RTVscan should be included. There should be talk on Endpoint protection how Symantec just about abandoned everything Corporate (including the RTVSCAN file itself) by adding the java based console and better Client Remote install etc. ShaggyDope (talk) 17:41, 17 August 2008 (UTC)ShaggyDope

I'm not qualified to write anything about that, someone else will have to do that. I just think the Rtvscan article is clutter and should be merged then deleted. DiggyG (talk) 23:10, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Here's the text removed from the Rtvscan page, which now redirects to Norton AntiVirus.

DiggyG (talk) 18:38, 26 August 2008 (UTC).

Outdated Info

In response to issues related to response time to viruses, Symantec introduced a new technology called "pulse updates" to Norton AntiVirus 2009. These updates are designed to deliver rapid updates every 5 to 15 minutes to ensure customers are kept up-to-date on threats without slowing down their computer with large updates.

Just a few years before, an article in eWeek criticized Symantec as the only vendor that provided virus definition updates on a weekly basis.[6]

This last line seems to be totally unneeded and was probably added by some anti-norton person. Im removing it.--Ryudo (talk) 09:04, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Dated Bias Against Norton

Much of the bias from this article stems from previous versions, especially 2006. Should I tone it down or just remove it? NAV09 is out and there is no reason under the sun why you should not like it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.154.218.91 (talk) 22:47, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Bias? Right now it's a love letter. I'm thinking of putting an {{advertisement}} tag on it. --CliffC (talk) 00:07, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

No it is not. It presents both sides; haters and lovers. As you can see, much of the hate and bias stems from 2006. Much, if not all, of the like stems from 2007 and beyond. 2007 was a turning point. The sources used were reliable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TechOutsider (talk • contribs) 04:37, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Advertisment?

Can someone explain how this article sounds like an Advertisement? All of the Independent Assessments were taken from reputable websites, not personal blogs by frustrated users. The comparisons were there to let the users know the facts. It is up to them to decide. We present the facts; they make the decision. There was absolutely no emotional appeal in this article. There were only facts backed up with citations and links. =) TechOutsider (talk) 16:11, 26 November 2008 (UTC)TechOutsider

And [6] links to a zdnet forum page. I do not think that is a reputable source. I am going to remove it unless challenged. =) TechOutsider (talk) 16:14, 26 November 2008 (UTC)TechOutsider

I removed the quotes from the Ind. Assessments section and product comparisons to kaspersky. Ill let the readers decide =) However, there is only one good choice =) —Preceding unsigned comment added by TechOutsider (talk • contribs) 16:28, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

And I removed the critism about performance. the reference was merely a forum. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TechOutsider (talk • contribs) 16:31, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

While researching other malware related articles, I came across this review of Norton 2009. Although I'm not currently a Norton user (sorry ... NOD32 and AVG mostly here), positive information should be promoted. http://www.geekstogo.com/2009/01/05/norton-internet-security-2009-review/#more-777 The review basically explains how Norton has made vast improvements to it's current AV software. I remembered that TechOutsider was a frequent editor to Norton related articles, and your page says see you here. So .. thought I'd drop off some info you may want to incorporate into the Norton stuff. Good Luck, and happy editing. Ched (talk) 21:47, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Should anonymous editors set article importance?

Would someone on WikiProject Computing take a look at these edits? Thanks. --CliffC (talk) 15:11, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Attention needed

If it is justifiable; I think that this article needs some attention, such as a new picture. TechOutsider (talk) 03:19, 16 December 2008 (UTC)TechOutsider

agreed .. and, I haven't checked the sources listed here, but perhaps there should be a table or two that showed the stats on how it performs. I've been through much of the references at WP: Anti Virus, and maybe those results could backup any claims that want to be made. Nope, not me ... I'm not a Norton fan, although it appears it has improved a great deal with the latest release. If I tried to write it, it would come off as negative POV, and that is not fair to readers or Symantec. To be honest, I loved the tools and the company back when Peter Norton ran it. I remember their desktop for Windows 3.1. I was also surprised to see that the AV didn't start until 1990, would have thought it was earlier than that. I'll try to find a cite for it, if you know of one let me know, and I'll put it in. Ched (talk) 03:28, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Added a line about the Norton Insight. Although the topic is covered in more depth in the following section, the cite should be of some note. Ched (talk) 21:57, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the clear and concise definition. Couldn't have put it better myself. TechOutsider (talk) 03:39, 1 February 2009 (UTC)TechOutsider

Merger with Norton Internet Security

Much of the info here applies to NIS as well, and it is very inconsistant. This article has this, and that article is missing that.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.154.218.91 (talk) 22:49, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I oppose ther merger. Norton AntiVirus and Norton Internet Security are two VERY seperate products that ONLY share a common antivirus engine. --Tyw7‍ ‍‍ (Talk ● Contributions) Leading Innovations >>> 15:02, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

If you were going to merge them, Norton AntiVirus is the more common name. 199.125.109.102 (talk) 14:15, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for all your suggestions, however I have determined I should split the two articles ... TechOutsider (talk) 23:21, 9 March 2009 (UTC)TechOutsider

Merge PIFTS.exe

Seems to like there's no need for a separate article on PIFTS.exe. The contents of PIFTS.exe and Norton AntiVirus#PIFTS.exe are almost identical. Astronaut (talk) 19:12, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Merge it or link it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.128.54.167 (talk) 19:30, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. There are (somewhat believable) accusations that the coverup extends beyond Norton (including digg and Google). If that is true, then the total controversy (properly researched and sourced) is only tangentially related to Norton AntiVirus, and rightfully belongs in a separate article. If no outside controversy is actually substantiated, then the articles should be merged. This is still a very active topic at the moment; I'd say this merge discussion is about a week premature. – 74  20:06, 10 March 2009 (UTC) Please do not edit my posts; if I'd wanted to emphasize "I disagree" then I would have done so. Thanks. – 74  21:14, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Agree. Lets see where this goes first. Thedarxide (talk) 21:07, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Wait and See Lets wait and see if this is notable or if it blows over in a few days before we do anything. --Arnos78 (talk) 22:19, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Expand article, then merge. The article needs to be expanded. Also needs clarification. First reading it, it sounded like NAV blocked pifts ... however NAV does not have a firewall. The person who created the article also was confused, looking at the revision history. TechOutsider (talk) 20:47, 10 March 2009 (UTC)TechOutsider

PIFTS is part of NAV, it was only because 3rd party firewalls blocked it that people noticed. Thedarxide (talk) 21:07, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Merge (or delete): This needs much, much better sourcing than it currently has (mostly blogs and sites that don't appear to be reliable) and it already smacks of news reporting. DP76764 (Talk) 21:08, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

There is now word from Symantec, as well as Sophos. The Washington Post is reliable, and I would argue that the ISC is as well. Given the volume of reporting, I'd say this is a notable incident, but if it dies off from today then merge the lot Thedarxide (talk) 21:24, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Merge (or delete): I think there's some value in the article but it needs to be pointed more at the way Norton handled it. ie. how they censored any discussion on their forums making people think it was a cover up of malware then left it so long that it was reported in the media before finally issuing a statement. Although I suspect in a week's time it won't be of any interest to anyone. Dullus (talk) 22:01, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

This edit has removed mention of PIFTS.exe from this article, leaving the separate article effectively orphaned. I've reverted that edit for the time being (until consensus is reached). Astronaut (talk) 13:17, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I think it would be a good idea to merge it. But would the only problem is that the PIFTS file was pushed to people running NAV and NIS as far as I know so perhaps both articles would have a mention of it, imo it doesn't warrant an article of it's own. Jamshud (talk) 17:55, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

The excitement seems to have died with no further allegations being substantiated. I believe a Merge and Redirect are now appropriate. – 74  00:37, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Agree It's seems to have blown over now --Arnos78 (talk) 15:10, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

free Norton upgrade

Shouldn't we mention on the free upgrades for Norton products. I stumbled upon this GENUINE Norton link: http://www.symantec.com/home_homeoffice/support/special/upgrade2007/vista/migration_start.jsp?site=nuc --Tyw7‍ ‍‍ (Talk ● Contributions) Leading Innovations >>> 17:06, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Aggressive Subscription Marketing

This edit seems to be nonconstructive. The user/IP address never provided one reference. I gave him a week to cough up the reference. However, he/she never did and claims references were provided. Again, the section is unreferenced and will be removed one week from the date of this message. TechOutsider (talk) 01:38, 22 March 2009 (UTC)TechOutsider

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3