Norton Internet Security 2003 any good?

RicardoSmith · 28-12-2003 12:59pm #1

Got this Norton Internet Security 2003 free with a laptop. Is it worth keeping or will I uninstall and install my normal Zone Alarm + AVG combo?

yallingup · 28-12-2003 1:11pm

NIS 2003 is not bad, but its virus definitions, etc, will not be updated unless you buy an extra subscription. So it leaves you vulnerable to new worms and viruses.

That said, its other components are a pretty good package. NIS 2004 is better but its code is still a little buggy, particularly the spam yoke.

In short, stick with Zone + AVG.

dod · 28-12-2003 1:56pm

Don't use it myself, but one of the guys does - he complains that it slows everything down to a crawl & every so often he gets inexplicable hangs which require him to reboot - he blames the Norton Internet Security package.

Second hand info as I say, so for what its worth, take it at face value.

Cr8or · 09-01-2004 10:14pm

it chews up system resources ... i removed it

get avg and a good firewall

wild_eyed · 13-01-2004 11:04am

whats avg?

Cr8or · 14-01-2004 4:26pm

AVG Anti-Virus - http://www.grisoft.com/

osmethod · 16-01-2004 11:34pm

It depends how conscientious of security you are....

If you check http://neworder.box.sk you'll see how easy it is to get around it. If it's a desktop firewall you are using then Zonealarm is adequate. However, the best desktop firewall I've used is Agnitum Outpost which is a free download here.... http://www.agnitum.com/download/outpost1.html.

RicardoSmith · 17-01-2004 9:50am

Originally posted by osmethod
It depends how conscientious of security you are....

If you check http://neworder.box.sk you'll see how easy it is to get around it. If it's a desktop firewall you are using then Zonealarm is adequate. However, the best desktop firewall I've used is Agnitum Outpost which is a free download here.... http://www.agnitum.com/download/outpost1.html.

Why do you think it is the best?

osmethod · 17-01-2004 1:36pm

This link should explain enough....

http://www2.agnitum.com/download/Outpost_vs_Other_Firewalls.pdf

muffen · 17-01-2004 2:45pm

Originally posted by osmethod
This link should explain enough....

http://www2.agnitum.com/download/Outpost_vs_Other_Firewalls.pdf

Umm... did you know that link goes to the page of the company that made the thing to begin with??
You don't think the info is a *little* biased?
Did you know that they are comparing their new version against everyone elses OLD versions???
They are comparing their new version against NIS2002. That's a TWO YEAR OLD product.
Seriously, how can you think that page proves anything? It's a cheesy marketing trick, and you fell for it. Unbelieveble.

You know, I got this email about an investment oppertunity in Nigeria by a long lost relative of the king... you can make millions if you help him move some money (will only cost you a couple of thousand)... I can forward you the mail if you want, you seem to be the kind of person who would go for an investment like this...

I use NIS, it works well, no slowdowns noticed, and it sure as hell beats AVG/ZoneAlarm (only one product to keep updated, and apart from being free, there is nothing good about AVG).

RicardoSmith · 17-01-2004 4:02pm

Originally posted by osmethod
This link should explain enough....

http://www2.agnitum.com/download/Outpost_vs_Other_Firewalls.pdf

Can you summarise it please. I want to know is that just your opinion, or do you have some valid technical reasons why its "better". Personally I don't like ZoneAlarm, but I have never been shown a good reason to use another product.

osmethod · 17-01-2004 4:06pm

Each to their own.....

If your observation skills were used in context you'd see it is free. Version 2 is the professional version if you want to pay for the frills.

TBH I wouldn't use a desktop firewall as they are very easy to circumvent. If you had a spare box consider using OBSD 3.4.

Don't understand the reasoning behind your sarcasm. Not really neccessary but each to their own....

Consider....

http://securityfocus.com/bid/6598
http://securityfocus.com/bid/8904
http://securityfocus.com/news/1570

Too many bugs consistently for me. Too much functionality tied into 1 essential product.

osmethod · 17-01-2004 4:09pm

The above sarcasm reference is aimed at muffen. And yes muffen you obviously should have named yourself muffin..... because you are a muffin!

RicardoSmith · 17-01-2004 4:12pm

NIS 2003 is just bad IMO. I'm in the process in fixing a PC that had it installed and the it was causing the PC to crawl (as usual I find) , and it didn't find some virii? that AVG managed to catch first pass.

I'm really only interested in something for home users who are on a dial up connections. Usually they only have one machine. But I'd like something thats less troublesome for a complete novice than Zone Alarm.

osmethod · 17-01-2004 4:25pm

Agnitum Outpost Firewall version 1 is free.
Agnitum Outpost Firewall version 2 costs money.

The packet filltering functionality at layer 3 is what I found to be the best implemented of all desktop firewalls.

I subjected the above and NIS to spoofing and packet injection techniques and Agnitum copped that there was something up! NIS did'nt!

The free version of Agnitum is very easy to use and combined with AVG I think is very adequate for what you seem to require. Users wouldn't be blinded with limitless configurations!

muffen · 17-01-2004 4:25pm

Originally posted by osmethod

Don't understand the reasoning behind your sarcasm. Not really neccessary but each to their own....

Consider....

http://securityfocus.com/bid/6598
http://securityfocus.com/bid/8904
http://securityfocus.com/news/1570

Too many bugs consistently for me. Too much functionality tied into 1 essential product.

Three bugs? If you cannot use NIS because 2003 (2004 is out now) had three bugs, there aren't many apps you can use. Granted NIS is a security product, but zonealarm has had more than three bugs. The email bug in NIS happened like 0,1% of the times, so its close to disregardable.
Furthermore, three bugs in NIS 2003 doesn't explain why outpost is the best firewall. The one thing that's good about outpost is that virtually no-one is using it, so it's less likely to get attacked. However, I cannot see how it would be any more secure than NIS, ZoneAlarm or BlackIce.

And yes muffen you obviously should have named yourself muffin..... because you are a muffin!

If you reply to my post, answer this:

Why did you say that?

Seems like a completly stupid and retarded remark that serves no other purpose than to show me that you have nothing useful to add... do you really want to turn this thread into yet-another-retarded-internet-argument?

I'll be the bigger person here and I won't say anything stupid about you. You are entitled to you opinion, although I disagree with you. If you want to post, keep it to the products and not my nick, because everyone else reading this thread probably doesn't care what you think my nick should be.

I read this joke a while back, which seems kinda fitting here: Winning an argument on a messageboard is like winning in the special olympics... in the end, you're (to avoid offending anyone) .. special.

osmethod · 17-01-2004 4:27pm

An aside...

If your home users are using XP, XP can be configured to block all inbound connections from the internet.

muffen · 17-01-2004 4:31pm

Don't understand the reasoning behind your sarcasm. Not really neccessary

The reason for the sarcasm was that you used marketing information from the company that created the product to show us why that was the best firewall. It's like asking Microsoft what the best OS is...
I felt it was completly obvious that you cannot use marketing information from the person who wants to sell you something as a reason for buying it.. that would be like falling for a Nigeria letter.

osmethod · 17-01-2004 4:31pm

muffin

Quotation:
"You know, I got this email about an investment oppertunity in Nigeria by a long lost relative of the king... you can make millions if you help him move some money (will only cost you a couple of thousand)... I can forward you the mail if you want, you seem to be the kind of person who would go for an investment like this..."

You can't retract what you've already written and your words say it best...

Quotation:
"Seems like a completly stupid and retarded remark that serves no other purpose than to show me that you have nothing useful to add... do you really want to turn this thread into yet-another-retarded-internet-argument?"

muffen · 17-01-2004 4:43pm

As you didn't read my post (that was posted BEFORE yours), here you go again:

The reason for the sarcasm was that you used marketing information from the company that created the product to show us why that was the best firewall. It's like asking Microsoft what the best OS is...
I felt it was completly obvious that you cannot use marketing information from the person who wants to sell you something as a reason for buying it.. that would be like falling for a Nigeria letter.

Now that I have explained why I was being sarcastic, can you explain your behaviour (if my explanation isn't sufficent, feel free to PM me, and I'll try to explain it better)?

Begin by explaining why your post start with my nick being muffin.

Hmm.... actually, now that I think about it, do whatever you want. This thread is obviously getting out of hand, and based on the fact that you won't give up the personal attacks, it's unlikely to get any better.

I'm not going to reply to you anymore, and I won't read this thread anymore. If you have something interesting to say that isn't about my nick, feel free to PM me. Otherwise, have a nice life.

osmethod · 17-01-2004 4:54pm

Whats your problem muffen?

You started the bullsh*t and your explanation to your bullsh*t comments are relative and subject to interpretation.

The document show what functionality each product had nothing else.....

Constructive criticism I don't mind but ridiculous conclusions and sarcasm for no relevant reason is antagonistic.

Also, considering microsoft have given "SFU 3.5" away for free you might have to reconsider "Microsoft Marketing Stratedgies" before blindly forming conclusions!

ecksor · 17-01-2004 5:02pm

Discuss the products and the information referenced please. Personal attacks are off-topic, and you can move your discussion about sarcasm and whatever to private message.

RicardoSmith · 18-01-2004 9:21am

Well I'm none the wiser as to what the technical merits of each firewall are, and thus which people think is the best. I'm using ZA primarily because its free. I tried Black Ice a year or so back and I didn't think that was any better/worse. At the time there wasn't a free version, only a limited time trial. That said if I found one I liked a lot I'd probably buy it. But a lot of the time I'm installing on Firends and Family it machines so having a free version is essential. At least to give minimal protection. Though I have never managed to set ZA so that it doesn't need some input from the user every so often. Even with all the prompts turned off. Maybe the full version has more functionality in that regard.

tibor · 18-01-2004 4:21pm

Originally posted by RicardoSmith
NIS 2003 is just bad IMO.

Thanks for the comprehensive review.

Other than "it makes my pc slow", no-one's given any valid reasons?
This "slowness" can be greatly reduced by ensuring you have the latest Engine updates and tweaking Auto-Protect settings.

I'm in the process in fixing a PC that had it installed and the it was causing the PC to crawl (as usual I find) , and it didn't find some virii? that AVG managed to catch first pass.

It's Viruses.

You mustn't have had the latest definitions installed, NAV got the Virus Bulletin 100% award on all platforms, which, notably, AVG didn't. See: url

tibor · 18-01-2004 4:22pm

Oh, and as for free desktop firewall solutions, I've found Kerio to be the best.

RicardoSmith · 18-01-2004 5:51pm

Originally posted by tibor
Thanks for the comprehensive review.

Other than "it makes my pc slow", no-one's given any valid reasons?
This "slowness" can be greatly reduced by ensuring you have the latest Engine updates and tweaking Auto-Protect settings.

It's Viruses.

You mustn't have had the latest definitions installed, NAV got the Virus Bulletin 100% award on all platforms, which, notably, AVG didn't. See: url

If I knew that much about it why would I have created a thread asking about it?

I should have said that I needed the AV solution for XP. AVG is fine on XP/Sever2003. I don't use any other OS at home or at work. I have had a recent experience of AVG finding Viruses that NAV2003 didn't. That kinda has decided the issue for me.

The speed issue is an important one for me. AVG doesn't have any noticable effect on a PC's performance. Whereas NAV is very noticeable. Especially if you have a lot of low end client machines. Even on a fast PC the sluggishness of Nav is very noticable.

Exactly what settings can speed it up? I'll try them on the some of the machines at work and see if it makes a difference.

tibor · 19-01-2004 2:43pm

Originally posted by RicardoSmith
Exactly what settings can speed it up? I'll try them on the some of the machines at work and see if it makes a difference.

Apart from keeping LiveUpdate up to scratch for the latest Engine changes, it depends on what the machine is being used for as to what options you don't really need. Some simple ones;

Add exclusions for temporary directories - that'll save NAV scanning ever changing temp files over and over, this should speed it up considerably.

Set Bloodhound hueristics to Low, but have it at high for you're weekly/fortnightly manual scan.

Scriptblocking: unless you're visiting dodgy sites, you don't really need it.

n00bee_cracker · 27-01-2004 6:19pm

Norton Internet security 2003 is brilliant! I wouldnt use anything else now! you can customize it to however you want it to work! 10\10

Norton Internet Security 2003 any good?

Comments