Neoseeker : News : The world's top three biggest botnets in action today
Sort by date: ascending descending
0 thumbs!
^
Shadow of Death Nov 9, 07
Eggghhhh, I wouldn't be surprised if my computer was part of one of the nets (probably Storm)...
0 thumbs!
^
Diablos Nov 10, 07
It's fairly easy to keep out, Avast, AVG and any standard anti-virus is enough to protect you. It's quite amazing how many people have unprotected computers. More and more people every day are buying computers and then just using it without looking into adding protection or security measures. The PC industry and such needs to raise awareness of these problems. It's currently not doing enough.
0 thumbs!
^
Cillchaoi Nov 10, 07
Another issue is that many people do not set their software up for proper detection. They just install the software and assume that the defaults are good enough. Further, many do happen to use AVG, Avast, Sophos, and other down-market antivirus packages thinking they will protect them. I have seen all too often thousands of infections that these programs have missed. (The worst was a machine that had over 35,000 infections yet the definitions for the antivirus program were up to date.)

The best protection is a firewall (preferably a hardware firewall/router) and a top-shelf antivirus program (the best is Norton Antivirus), both properly configured.
0 thumbs!
^
DeathMonkey Nov 11, 07
Good job I format quite often.
0 thumbs!
^
DeltaGorno Nov 11, 07
I'd recommend any free AV software over Norton, Norton has a habit of infesting your computer and not letting go. In most AV tests Norton barely does better than the free programs anyway, and frankly unless you're an idiot when it comes to email or you download excessive amounts of porn, the free software is more than adequate and doesn't decide that your computer belongs to it and it alone.

If you absolutely must pay for your AV software, Kaspersky is the way forward. Having said that about Norton, if you can get Symantec Corporate from your employer it is frankly superb. Pity their excellence with the corporate software never translates to their commercial software.
0 thumbs!
^
iamjoe56 Nov 11, 07
Delta, I shall warn you now. Cillchaoi is not one to argue with over technical issues. You will be beaten into the ground. I'd suggest backing off now.

But one I point I have, is that you can BUY the corperate license for Norton for about $40.
0 thumbs!
^
DeltaGorno Nov 11, 07
Riiiight. I'ma quaking in my boots.
0 thumbs!
^
iamjoe56 Nov 11, 07
Don't beleive me? Fine, find out when he gets on. He'll eat you for breakfast.
0 thumbs!
^
Cillchaoi Nov 11, 07
Deltagorno,

Everyone is entitled to his own opinion but I shall say that, being a professional in this industry and having had to clean computers that were supposedly "clean" according to things such as Kaspersky, I can tell you that none of those freebies out there work as well as Norton. Further, the difference between the Corporate version and the non-corporate has to do with the way that it operates in relation to external entities (e.g. Norton Command Console, servers, etc.). It has nothing to do with the way that the scanning takes place nor how well it detects infections.

Further, yes, there have been some versions (up through 2004) that got corrupted on occasion and took a little while to get out if one wished to upgrade to the new version or put on a lesser program (such as McAfee). However, for those who knew how to do it, the removal took only about 15-20 minutes when it was corrupted (as opposed to 5-10 minutes when it was undamaged). Most of the corruption was due to infections that people told Norton to ignore anyway.

Since the days of NAV 2005, I have not seen any installations that were problematic upon upgrade to a newer version or installation of something else. I cannot say the same about McAfee, though. McAfee gets into the computer and stays there until the computer is reformatted. I have had a number of clients who have decided to go for Norton Antivirus and the only option I had was to hack into the registry to disable McAfee. Attempting to uninstall the program through the control panel did not work (showing McAfee to be a virus itself in my personal opinion).

On another note, many people seem to feel that just renewing the subscription to virus definition updates is the same as buying the new program. Nothing could be farther from the truth, no matter if it is NAV, McAfee, or any other program (purchased or not). One must update the program so as to have it detect the new and different types of infections that exist. Resubscribing without updating allows one only to detect the new viruses that are of the same type that the installed version of the program can detect. For example, back in 2002, worms were very different than they are now. Any antivirus program designed in 2002 would be incapable of detecting a worm designed with 2007 technology.

Now, here is another issue for you: if Norton Antivirus is not the best antivirus package, then why is it the package of choice for the companies and organizations wanting the best security possible for their networks? Having worked for major corporations and for the federal government, I have seen first-hand that they use NAV as opposed to anything else available on the market. Before you try to say anything about pricing, let me say that I know that others have offered lower prices than NAV in the past but still NAV has won out. The reasons for this continued choice are stability, reliability, quality of support, frequency of definition updates, and quality of detection/removal of infections.
0 thumbs!
^
LordShotGun Nov 12, 07
Sorry, CillChaoi, i have to agree with DeltaGorno, i have used norton with some succes and i agree that it is the best antivirus software.

Only for people like me who don't use the internet for porn and programs, i think freeware is fine.

But, if your one of those people who use limewire heavily then buy norton.
0 thumbs!
^
Cillchaoi Nov 12, 07
As I said, LordShotGun, you may have your own opinion. However, as a professional in the field of network security, I can tell you that the facts do not support your opinion. Feel free to do whatever you wish, though.

I personally have gone for years without using antivirus programs on my machines at home and I have avoided getting viruses on them. Does that mean that having no antivirus is as effective as having Norton Antivirus? Of course not. It means only that I am careful about what I am doing. The issue is what is the best antivirus out there to detect infections. Norton Antivirus is the winner hands down.
0 thumbs!
^
LordShotGun Nov 12, 07
Cillchaoi, just to clear us up I did say that I agreed with you about that norton is the best.....

Also, I have better then most experience, but compaired to people who make a living in your field Cillchaoi, I have only my opinions.
0 thumbs!
^
iamjoe56 Nov 12, 07
I have only My Opinions too. And Sadly, I wsh my parents would shell out the dough for a copy of NAV. We recetnyl switched over to Avast!. And I gotta say. I HATE IT! It gets in the way of my games, it has caused prografiles to become corrupted because it scanned them and "removed" a virus. I would much rather deal with NAV than ANYTHING else.
0 thumbs!
^
DeltaGorno Nov 12, 07
Firstly, Kaspersky is a paid-for AV product. It has a free trial but beyond that it isn't a freebie.

Secondly there is a difference between Symantec Corporate and Norton, corporate has a much smaller footprint and a much smaller overhead on running. For an older PC, Symantec wont drag you down with bloat. Though they've made good progress in reducing the bloat; Norton 2003 was god-awful for slowing your PC down, Norton 2008 is reasonably efficient.

Looking at the various AV comparisons (av-comparisons.org for instance) there's almost bugger all difference between the various top AV suites, be it Norton, NOD32, Kaspersky or whatever. Notably the freebies tend to lose out on their polymorphic and heuristic tests, but said programming is a lot more complicated than standard signatures and being freebies their budget is less, so it kinda makes sense they aren't so hot on the unknowns.

It actually surprises me to hear an IT professional recommend Norton to a non-idiot home user. Every IT professional I know warns people who have some computer-savvyness well off Norton. Sour grapes from when Norton infected machines and refused to uninstall? Maybe.

Anyway, as I said unless you really are completely useless at not downloading less-than-savoury material from less-than-legal sites and are a complete muppet when it comes to opening every email attachment, a freebie AV scanner will be sufficient. A small amount of common sense goes a long way to preventing infection.
^
Sponsored
Sort by date: ascending descending
- This news story is archived and is closed to new comments now -
Newsletter
Latest News
Latest Inhouse
NVIDIA GeForce 337.50 Beta Driver Comparison XFX Type01 Bravo Mid-Tower Case Review Cooler Master JetFlo 120 Fan Review ROCCAT Ryos MK Glow Mechanical Keyboard Review Cooler Master HAF Stacker 915F & 915R Review Noctua NH-U12S & NH-U14S CPU Cooler Review
(0.3126/mc/web3)