Kaspersky Vs. Norton/Symantec - Microsoft Windows

This is a discussion on Kaspersky Vs. Norton/Symantec - Microsoft Windows ; On Sat, 18 Jun 2005 19:50:01 +0200, JJ wrote: >macafee is maybe good in detecting viruses...but as i said on the trojan >front it lakes.... I presume you mean "lacks"? No, McAfee is NOT lacking in the Trojan detection department. ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Results 21 to 40 of 40

Thread: Kaspersky Vs. Norton/Symantec

  1. Re: Kaspersky Vs. Norton/Symantec

    On Sat, 18 Jun 2005 19:50:01 +0200, JJ
    wrote:

    >macafee is maybe good in detecting viruses...but as i said on the trojan
    >front it lakes....


    I presume you mean "lacks"? No, McAfee is NOT lacking in the Trojan
    detection department. As I said, it's right up there close to KAV. It
    also has settings, in some versions at least, to alert on some
    "controversialware" ... just as KAV does. However, it's hard to say
    just how they compare in "fringe area" detection of various spyware,
    adware, dialers, etc. It's best to use spyware and adware scanners
    along with top notch av products.

    Art

    http://home.epix.net/~artnpeg

  2. Re: Kaspersky Vs. Norton/Symantec

    yes...KAV is not free....however it's worth it.
    All good AV programs are not free...think of it.

    http://www.kaspersky.com/

    check it out.

    if you don't want to pay for it use a fileshare program like edonky2000
    or emule to download it with a keyfile and/or a crack...it works great!

    JJ

    Ron Reaugh wrote:
    > "JJ" wrote in message
    > news:d91116$1pk$2@news6.zwoll1.ov.home.nl...
    >
    >>I can be short on this one:
    >>
    >>KAV uses less memory then Norton...and the updates are FAR more faster
    >>and more frequent then Norton.
    >>Besides all this KAV also detects MORE viruses and other crap then
    >>Norton does.
    >>
    >>If you REALY want protection use KAV instead of Norton.
    >>
    >>need I say more?

    >
    >
    >
    > YES, does it cost money? Do you have to renew it?
    >
    >


  3. Re: Kaspersky Vs. Norton/Symantec

    hitman pro 2.0 is free and will do just the thing against spyware.

    try it.

    JJ

    Art wrote:
    > On Sat, 18 Jun 2005 19:50:01 +0200, JJ
    > wrote:
    >
    >
    >>macafee is maybe good in detecting viruses...but as i said on the trojan
    >>front it lakes....

    >
    >
    > I presume you mean "lacks"? No, McAfee is NOT lacking in the Trojan
    > detection department. As I said, it's right up there close to KAV. It
    > also has settings, in some versions at least, to alert on some
    > "controversialware" ... just as KAV does. However, it's hard to say
    > just how they compare in "fringe area" detection of various spyware,
    > adware, dialers, etc. It's best to use spyware and adware scanners
    > along with top notch av products.
    >
    > Art
    >
    > http://home.epix.net/~artnpeg


  4. Re: Kaspersky Vs. Norton/Symantec

    Art answered:
    > On Sat, 18 Jun 2005 19:50:01 +0200, JJ
    > wrote:
    >
    >
    >>macafee is maybe good in detecting viruses...but as i said on the trojan
    >>front it lakes....

    >
    >
    > I presume you mean "lacks"? No, McAfee is NOT lacking in the Trojan
    > detection department. As I said, it's right up there close to KAV. It
    > also has settings, in some versions at least, to alert on some
    > "controversialware" ... just as KAV does. However, it's hard to say
    > just how they compare in "fringe area" detection of various spyware,
    > adware, dialers, etc. It's best to use spyware and adware scanners
    > along with top notch av products.
    >
    > Art
    >
    > http://home.epix.net/~artnpeg


    Considering your site is for windows ME, I'd say you have **** for
    brains. STFU.

    Macafee indeed.... Buwahahahahahahahahaha

  5. Re: Kaspersky Vs. Norton/Symantec

    On Sat, 18 Jun 2005 22:13:52 GMT, Blackheart
    wrote:

    >Macafee indeed.... Buwahahahahahahahahaha


    Very informative post. Kiddies must be out of school

    Art

    http://home.epix.net/~artnpeg

  6. Re: Kaspersky Vs. Norton/Symantec

    Art answered:
    > On Sat, 18 Jun 2005 22:13:52 GMT, Blackheart
    > wrote:
    >
    >
    >>Macafee indeed.... Buwahahahahahahahahaha

    >
    >
    > Very informative post. Kiddies must be out of school
    >
    > Art
    >
    > http://home.epix.net/~artnpeg


    Typical answer from someone professing to know what he's doing, but at
    the same time found to be *SO ****ING STUPID* as to be using a POS OS
    such as Windows ME.

    Try forming words after you grow up.

  7. Re: Kaspersky Vs. Norton/Symantec

    On Sun, 19 Jun 2005 02:50:00 GMT, Jack Zwick
    wrote:

    >>>Macafee indeed.... Buwahahahahahahahahaha

    >>
    >> Very informative post. Kiddies must be out of school


    >Typical answer from someone professing to know what he's doing, but at
    >the same time found to be *SO ****ING STUPID* as to be using a POS OS
    >such as Windows ME.


    Yes, I do still have one machine with Win ME running. It's a Hp
    Pavilion with a 900 mhz PIII that just won't quit. Solid as a rock,
    and a really great trouble-free machine.

    Do come back after getting a brain transplant, dimbulb.

    Art

    http://home.epix.net/~artnpeg

  8. Re: Kaspersky Vs. Norton/Symantec

    Art answered:
    > On Sun, 19 Jun 2005 02:50:00 GMT, Jack Zwick
    > wrote:
    >
    >
    >>>>Macafee indeed.... Buwahahahahahahahahaha
    >>>
    >>>Very informative post. Kiddies must be out of school

    >
    >
    >>Typical answer from someone professing to know what he's doing, but at
    >>the same time found to be *SO ****ING STUPID* as to be using a POS OS
    >>such as Windows ME.

    >
    >
    > Yes, I do still have one machine with Win ME running. It's a Hp
    > Pavilion with a 900 mhz PIII that just won't quit. Solid as a rock,
    > and a really great trouble-free machine.


    BUWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!! *WHAT A DUMB ***** Did your parents have kids
    THAT LIVED?

  9. Re: Kaspersky Vs. Norton/Symantec


    "Jack Zwick" wrote in message
    news:1Ofte.6515$jX6.893@newsread2.news.pas.earthli nk.net...
    > Art answered:
    >> On Sun, 19 Jun 2005 02:50:00 GMT, Jack Zwick
    >> wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>>>>Macafee indeed.... Buwahahahahahahahahaha
    >>>>
    >>>>Very informative post. Kiddies must be out of school

    >>
    >>
    >>>Typical answer from someone professing to know what he's doing, but at
    >>>the same time found to be *SO ****ING STUPID* as to be using a POS OS
    >>>such as Windows ME.

    >>
    >>
    >> Yes, I do still have one machine with Win ME running. It's a Hp
    >> Pavilion with a 900 mhz PIII that just won't quit. Solid as a rock,
    >> and a really great trouble-free machine.

    >
    > BUWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!! *WHAT A DUMB ***** Did your parents have kids
    > THAT LIVED?


    I have found WinMe to be hit and miss, a good installation is a good
    installation, for a home user, pre XP, it has many benefits, its native
    support for digital cameras, usb thumb drives etc, combined with system
    restore, and a more wizard based user interface are for the novice very
    useful.

    Winme can also be useful for a user who has an older computer but no drivers
    disk (or hope of getting one), the driver database in winme is much greater
    then win98se, and can pick up many soundcards, network cards and graphics
    etc.

    I once came across an old laptop, a far east obscure brand, it was not
    possible to trace the win98 drivers for the graphics chip built-in following
    a reinstall, the system was too underpowered for XP, with win98 it had
    default graphics (on an old laptop screen, if it was built for 800x600, and
    you could only get 600x400, you ended up with an inch black border around
    the screen), i installed winme, and the little bugger installed the correct
    driver.
    That is a result.

    The beta of Winme, by the way was more reliable and stable then the full
    released version.

    Gaz



  10. Re: Kaspersky Vs. Norton/Symantec

    On 17 Jun 2005 12:20:31 -0700, Kaimbridge@gmail.com wrote:

    >For a permanent anti-virus ("a-v") platform, the store is pushing
    >Norton 2005 ("N2K5") [when I got my original PC from them in 1997,
    >the suggestion--which I took--was McAfee, which I've found to be
    >bloated and somewhat buggy--though part of it may have been
    >exasperated by my 200 MHz, 2.1 GB dinosaur!


    Most retail sales droids will push "Norton" or "McAfee" (i.e. Symantec
    or Network Associates).

    >Googling around, another a-v package that seems decent is Kaspersky
    >(is it pronounced "CASper Sky" or "Kass PERskee"?).


    Well found - it's got the most solid rep, and it does commercial
    malware as well (thouhg I wouldn't throw away free AdAware, Spybot,
    MSASBeta and HiJackThis just yet).

    >I asked about it at the computer store and supposedly they never
    >heard of Kaspersky: Given that it seems to be well known in the
    >computer geek circles (including major computer magazines), I find
    >the store's (supposed) lack of awareness rather suspect


    Well, it's about "the channel".

    "Norton" and "McAfee" pitch to end users through large glossy media
    ads and so on, and old-timers who remember Peter Norton's excellent
    DOS-era utilities and John McAfee's pioneering work in the DOS era of
    av (when McAfee was free for end users) will nod sagely at those
    names, even though the figurhead personalities have moved on.

    Having created public demand, "Norton" and "McAfee" offer their goods
    in nicely-packaged shrink-wrap to the retail channel, so they can mark
    up and resell it. Other av such as Kaspersky or NOD32 may be better,
    but may sell directly to users via the 'net; no nice middle-man
    opportunity for retail there.

    So are you really surprised that retail sales droids don't talk about
    anything other than "Norton" and "McAfee"?

    >On a couple of programs I've run, I've gotten the "16 bit MS-DOS
    >Subsystem" error box, "C:\PROGRA~1\Symantec\S32EVNT1.DLL. An
    >installable Virtual Device Driver failed Dll initialization. Choose
    >'Close' to terminate the application."


    >Doing a Google search, I see that it is the result of a
    >faulty/corrupt Symantec (i.e., Norton) register--HUH!!!:


    Register? Hardware processors have registers, software may have
    registry entries. Do you mean, registry entry?

    >But, sure enough, while visiting the registry (regarding a separate
    >issue--see below), there *is* a Symantec registry folder!?!
    >I had been inclined to go along with the store's N2K5 recommendation
    >[though I'd probably get it at Wal-Mart, where it's $10-15 cheaper
    >P=) ], but the more I think about it, the more galling it becomes to
    >think that Symantec somehow had a folder (registry, yet!) preemtively
    >added to the system (once again, the computer store appeared clueless,
    >denying that they added it in during the setup, or even knew about it,
    >and even went so far as to say, "when you install N2K5, that should
    >clear things up"!).


    "Sit on this and rotate" would be my response to that suggestion...

    >The only other possibility I can think of is that it is somehow related
    >to and/or introduced by WinXP's SP2: The reason that I was in the
    >registry was that SP2 locked out WordPad's ability to load
    >"Word For Windows 6.0" ".doc" files, due to an apparent security hole.


    That's interesting. WordPad doesn't interpret Visual Basic for
    Attacks or Word macros, so they must be hedging against some sort of
    code exploit... or maybe they want to starve you towards MS Office
    :-)

    >Could SP2 have added the Symantec folder?


    Possibly. In some cases, registry settings and/or Program Files
    subdirs may be pre-seeded so that appropriate permissions can be set,
    and so on. That may be the case here.. or you may already have active
    malware that's seeded its own "Norton" material, either to kosh
    "Norton" or as protective camoflage. As "Norton" contains its own
    commercial malware - a hidden system designed to DoS you if it
    "thinks" you are breaking their precious licensing terms - you'd not
    want to pick a fight with it, deleting arbitrary files etc.

    So pretending to be a part of "Norton" is quite smart. even if those
    files or settings didn't have a particular counter-NAV purpose.

    >Or, is Norton the "unofficial" WinXP a-v program?


    Nope

    >Or...
    >...am I just paranoid and there is a perfectly legitimate reason for
    >the Symantec folder (i.e., some other, unrelated Symantec program)?


    Possible - for example, you may have installed MS Office with Outlook,
    and elected to include Symatec's WinFax starter edition. The "Norton"
    branded products tend to share some common code, such as used to pull
    down updates (LiveUpdate), so if you've had any "Norton" products
    installed at all, it may be from that. Many OEMs ship with a
    time-bombed NAV (yes, I know; all commercial av is time-bombed for 12
    months at a time, but this would be a 1 or 3 month fuse)

    >>From what I've read, Kaspersky appears at least as good as N2K5, though

    >there *is* one page of reviews that is less than flattering:


    >http://www.pcmag.com/member_ratings/...a=26455,00.asp


    >Have any newly discovered issues with Kaspersky come up?


    >Would it hurt to try their 30 day trial?--or, if I did decide to choose
    >N2K5 or something else (or even decide on Kaspersky), would all of the
    >leftover debris from the two trial versions (even after "uninstalling")
    >likely create any potential conflicts/issues?


    There are a lot of av out there, incliding some free ones (AVG, Avast,
    Anti-Vir, Clam AV). Fee ones include NOD32, Trend PC-cillin, F-Secure
    (uses Kaspersky and F-Prot engines), Sophos, Panda, eTrust, etc.

    Because of the "product activation" commercial malware factor,
    "Norton" would be at the very bottom of my list. I'm using AVG as
    resident scanner, and Trend SysClean and F-Prot for DOS as my
    on-demand scanners for formal post-infection interventions.

    All of those are free for non-commercial use.



    >------------------------ ---- --- -- - - - -

    Forget http://cquirke.blogspot.com and check out a
    better one at http://topicdrift.blogspot.com instead!
    >------------------------ ---- --- -- - - - -


  11. Re: Kaspersky Vs. Norton/Symantec


    "cquirke (MVP Windows shell/user)" wrote in
    message news:69cbb1l2i42l16c82sh2hq90e86de52kdo@4ax.com...

    -snip

    > Because of the "product activation" commercial malware factor,
    > "Norton" would be at the very bottom of my list. I'm using AVG as
    > resident scanner, and Trend SysClean and F-Prot for DOS as my
    > on-demand scanners for formal post-infection interventions.



    RIGHT, like most the other well informed.



  12. Re: Kaspersky Vs. Norton/Symantec

    Jack Zwick wrote:
    [snip]
    > Typical answer from someone professing to know what he's doing, but at
    > the same time found to be *SO ****ING STUPID* as to be using a POS OS
    > such as Windows ME.
    >
    > Try forming words after you grow up.


    perhaps the words "non sequitur" would be to your liking, or maybe "ad
    hominem"... or perhaps your OS zealotry would prevent you from liking
    those words...

    whatever...

    you folks have obviously failed to grasp the nature of rational
    discourse if your rebuttals of the points he made are based on entirely
    unrelated data... his assessment of mcafee's trojan detection ability
    has nothing to do with what operating system he uses... stop confusing
    yourselves with such extraneous trivialities...

    --
    "they threw a rope around yer neck to watch you dance the jig of death
    then left ya for the starvin' crows, hoverin' like hungry whores
    one flew down plucked out yer eye, the other he had in his sights
    ya snarled at him, said leave me be - i need the bugger so i can see"

  13. Re: Kaspersky Vs. Norton/Symantec


    "Art" wrote in message
    news:eboab1ln1k4qteag76m5clfd799rtbg0tt@4ax.com...
    > On Sun, 19 Jun 2005 02:50:00 GMT, Jack Zwick


    > Yes, I do still have one machine with Win ME running. It's a Hp
    > Pavilion with a 900 mhz PIII that just won't quit. Solid as a rock,
    > and a really great trouble-free machine.
    >
    > Do come back after getting a brain transplant, dimbulb.
    >
    > Art


    Art, don't feed the Troll, just PLONK his butt!

    Chas.



  14. Re: Kaspersky Vs. Norton/Symantec

    cquirke (MVP Windows shell/user) wrote:

    >> On a couple of programs I've run, I've gotten the "16 bit MS-DOS
    >> Subsystem" error box, "C:\PROGRA~1\Symantec\S32EVNT1.DLL. An
    >> installable Virtual Device Driver failed Dll initialization. Choose
    >> 'Close' to terminate the application."

    >
    >> Doing a Google search, I see that it is the result of a
    >> faulty/corrupt Symantec (i.e., Norton) register--HUH!!!:

    >
    > Register? Hardware processors have registers, software may have
    > registry entries. Do you mean, registry entry?


    Yup.

    >> But, sure enough, while visiting the registry (regarding a separate
    >> issue--see below), there *is* a Symantec registry folder!?!


    Under HKEY_CURRENT_USER/Software/Symantec, there is a "LiveUpdate
    Administration Utility" folder, and under
    HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE/Software/Symantec, there are several folders:
    "CCPD-LC", "IDS", "InstalledApps", "PaqchInst", "SharedUsage",
    "Symevent" and "SymNetDrv"!.

    I went to their site and searched, and came up with the culprit:

    # The two most common causes for the error messages to display when
    # launching 16 bit applications are outdated (older) Symantec Event
    # files (Symevnt) or a corrupt registry key. To resolve the problem,
    # use the steps in the following sections.
    #
    # Update the Symevnt files
    # To update Symevnt files, download and run the Sevinst.exe update
    # file.

    I bit and ran it and it did seem to cure it (though now in "Program
    Files/Symantec", there are five brand new files: S32EVNT1.DLL,
    SYMEVENT.CAT, SYMEVENT.INF and SYMEVENT.SYS! P=/ ).

    >> Could SP2 have added the Symantec folder?

    >
    > Possibly. In some cases, registry settings and/or Program Files
    > subdirs may be pre-seeded so that appropriate permissions can be set,
    > and so on. That may be the case here.. or you may already have active
    > malware that's seeded its own "Norton" material, either to kosh
    > "Norton" or as protective camoflage. As "Norton" contains its own
    > commercial malware - a hidden system designed to DoS you if it
    > "thinks" you are breaking their precious licensing terms - you'd not
    > want to pick a fight with it, deleting arbitrary files etc.


    I had considered seeing if I could remove their program/registry files,
    but came to the same conclusion you did: Let sleeping dogs lie!

    > So pretending to be a part of "Norton" is quite smart. even if those
    > files or settings didn't have a particular counter-NAV purpose.


    >> The reason that I was in the registry was that SP2 locked out
    >> WordPad's ability to load "Word For Windows 6.0" ".doc" files,
    >> due to an apparent security hole.

    >
    > That's interesting. WordPad doesn't interpret Visual Basic for
    > Attacks or Word macros, so they must be hedging against some sort of
    > code exploit


    These two pages give the cure:

    http://support.microsoft.com/kb/883090

    http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=870883

    I tried it and .doc files open fine now! P=)

    ~Kaimbridge~

    -----
    Wanted-Kaimbridge (w/mugshot!):
    http://www.angelfire.com/ma2/digitol...nted_KMGC.html
    ----------
    Digitology-The Grand Theory Of The Universe:
    http://www.angelfire.com/ma2/digitology/index.html

    ***** Void Where Permitted; Limit 0 Per Customer. *****


  15. Re: Kaspersky Vs. Norton/Symantec

    I highly agree with what you said.

    I've noticed so many people will go out and buy norton, but after a
    year. They don't feel like upgrading it and wham they get hit with a
    virus.

    Of course someone will say that it was their own fault for not doing
    the upgrade. But I don't think alot of people can justify paying over
    $50 per year, just to be protected. For the longest time I would just
    download norton illegally and install it on any system I might build
    for a friend. I would inform them that they have a pirated copy of the
    program and I could uninstall it, but I did recomend not to. I know I
    was stealing, but in my opinion I could give a rats ass if I was.

    AVG may not be the most gimicky AV program. But it does its job and it
    does it without bugging you about it.

    One thing that bugged me about norton was when using windows 2000 or XP
    you had to be running in an administrator account for it to be able to
    do the weekly virus updates. Which is stupid, because I had set my
    parents up in regular accounts so as they couldn't start changing the
    settings. With AVG it does its update perfectly in the regular user
    account. Which is great.


  16. Re: Kaspersky Vs. Norton/Symantec

    Why not jus give atry to:

    http://www.freeav.com

    ?

    I have been using it for 2 years and does the job!

    Regards


  17. Re: Kaspersky Vs. Norton/Symantec

    But when a group of people make a product for themselves because they
    need it, and aren't interested in turning it into a business, you can
    get a good thing for free. Of course, this wouldn't have worked in the
    1800's, when there weren't really any products that a person could give
    away at no significant cost to themselves. But now software is such a
    thing. Clam Antivirus (http://www.clamav.net) is such a
    community-created piece of software. It is free and freely
    redistributable and alterable under the GNU General Public License, and
    many major companies (Macintosh included) trust it.


  18. Re: Kaspersky Vs. Norton/Symantec

    ktvoelker@gmail.com wrote:
    > But when a group of people make a product for themselves because they
    > need it, and aren't interested in turning it into a business, you can
    > get a good thing for free. Of course, this wouldn't have worked in the
    > 1800's, when there weren't really any products that a person could give
    > away at no significant cost to themselves. But now software is such a
    > thing. Clam Antivirus (http://www.clamav.net) is such a
    > community-created piece of software. It is free and freely
    > redistributable and alterable under the GNU General Public License, and
    > many major companies (Macintosh included) trust it.


    that's all well and good and i'm sure it gives people warm fuzzy
    feelings, but the fact is it only detects about 1/3 of the total set of
    known viruses...

    --
    "they threw a rope around yer neck to watch you dance the jig of death
    then left ya for the starvin' crows, hoverin' like hungry whores
    one flew down plucked out yer eye, the other he had in his sights
    ya snarled at him, said leave me be - i need the bugger so i can see"

  19. Re: Kaspersky Vs. Norton/Symantec

    On 22 Jun 2005 21:09:04 -0700, ktvoelker@gmail.com wrote:

    >But when a group of people make a product for themselves because they
    >need it, and aren't interested in turning it into a business, you can
    >get a good thing for free. Clam Antivirus (http://www.clamav.net) is a
    >community-created piece of software. It is free and freely
    >redistributable and alterable under the GNU General Public License.


    Would these folks dev for Bart's? Because that's what we need; Avast
    for Bart's is great, but the cost is ghastly.



    >------------------------ ---- --- -- - - - -

    Forget http://cquirke.blogspot.com and check out a
    better one at http://topicdrift.blogspot.com instead!
    >------------------------ ---- --- -- - - - -


  20. Re: Kaspersky Vs. Norton/Symantec

    On 22 Jun 2005 21:09:04 -0700, ktvoelker@gmail.com wrote:

    >Clam Antivirus (http://www.clamav.net) is a community-created
    >piece of software. It is free and freely redistributable and alterable
    >under the GNU General Public License


    Freely alterable? You mean I can create and distribute a malware'd
    (sorry, "commercially value-added") version? :-)

    I went to the Wiki but I could not edit. As I see this is a primarily
    non-Windows initiative, I would have asked about a mOS version:
    - bootable Linux CDR such as Knoppix, etc.
    - ClamAV on a oft-updated, write-protected USB stick
    - scan all files and report malware found (ClamAV doesn't clean)



    >-------------------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -

    Tip Of The Day:
    To disable the 'Tip of the Day' feature...
    >-------------------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -


+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2