To Norton or not to Norton

judderman62

superscaper wrote: »

As far as I know this isn't true. The vista firewall also protects outbound transmission as well and seems to be sufficient when looking at what's required from a firewall.

iT WAS DEFINITELY THE CASE IN xp (oops 'scuse caps lock) maybe it's changed in Vista

judderman62

Nope seems it doesn't control outgoing activity see here:

http://www.agnitum.com/news/securityinsight/issues/january2007

espresso

Katykat wrote: »

Sorry to highjack this post. I have Norton on my PC, it was installed when I bought it, but I have never updated it ( get the reminder every time I switch on) I'm really not techie minded. Would I be better uninsstalling it and downloading a different virus protection. My PC is very slow sometimes. I have XP home and I dont visit any dubious websites, but I email quite a bit

If your Norton is out of date, you do not have anti-virus protection. Remove Norton using this tool and the install something like AVG free.

superscaper

judderman62 wrote: »

Nope seems it doesn't control outgoing activity see here:

http://www.agnitum.com/news/securityinsight/issues/january2007

Still can't see it. If I'm reading it right it's complaining the outgoing monitoring isn't switched on by default but it doesn't say that it doesn't have that feature at all.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Firewall

judderman62

Sorry I also meant to post this extract from the closing conclusion of that page:

Conclusions

Microsoft’s move to improved OS security has been long awaited – some might say long overdue - and will bring some benefit to users. Certain of the new security measures introduced will undoubtedly make users safer, although at a cost - increased prompts triggered by UAC or IE Protected Mode, as well as other distractions. But it’s clear one thing that won’t ever bother most users: the Windows Vista firewall. It doesn’t control outbound activity, and so it is inherently incapable of delivering real-time control over network traffic. The fact that it can only allow or block connections creates a sizeable security risk if the firewall allows outbound connections and a serious interference with productive PC usage if all outbound traffic is blocked.
Unsurprisingly, then, it’s my view that users would be better advised to use a dedicated, time-proven third party firewall like Outpost to protect their online activities.

C_Ronaldo

I wouldnt touch norton with a 1000000000 metre barge pole, never again,

superscaper

judderman62 wrote: »

Sorry I also meant to post this extract from the closing conclusion of that page:

Not disputing how good it is or not just that it does "feature" outbound monitoring when XP does not. Whether it's effective or not (as appears to be conclusion of this review) I can't disagree with.

tweeter

Hope you don't mind me coming in here but "swvillafan" #9 shows a link to Shields Up

I tried the Shields Up Test on common ports and got failed.
I thought I was covered.Any ideas.

Have Zone Alarm, Avast,and Xyzel router

Solicited TCP Packets: RECEIVED (FAILED) — As detailed in the port report below, one or more of your system's ports actively responded to our deliberate attempts to establish a connection. It is generally possible to increase your system's security by hiding it from the probes of potentially hostile hackers. Please see the details presented by the specific port links below, as well as the various resources on this site, and in our extremely helpful and active user community.

Unsolicited Packets: PASSED — No Internet packets of any sort were received from your system as a side-effect of our attempts to elicit some response from any of the ports listed above. Some questionable personal security systems expose their users by attempting to "counter-probe the prober", thus revealing themselves. But your system remained wisely silent. (Except for the fact that not all of its ports are completely stealthed as shown below.)

Ping Echo: PASSED — Your system ignored and refused to reply to repeated Pings (ICMP Echo Requests) from our server.
GRC Port Authority Report created on UTC: 2007-08-13 at 10:11:31

Results from scan of ports: 0, 21-23, 25, 79, 80, 110, 113,
119, 135, 139, 143, 389, 443, 445,
1002, 1024-1030, 1720, 5000

0 Ports Open
23 Ports Closed
3 Ports Stealth

---

26 Ports Tested

NO PORTS were found to be OPEN.

Ports found to be STEALTH were: 21, 23, 80

Other than what is listed above, all ports are CLOSED.

TruStealth: FAILED - NOT all tested ports were STEALTH,
- NO unsolicited packets were received,
- NO Ping reply (ICMP Echo) was received.

---

ssjx

Hi, I use ZoneAlarm's security suite which includes virus checker and firewall. The virus checker uses Kaspersky's engine. The only downside to zass is that it can be a bit complicated, but it does notify you of anything suspicious and the program controls are useful.

Also you mention your computer is running slow, this may be an unrelated issue. Are you running low on disk space or does the harddisk need a defrag?

superscaper

tweeter wrote: »

Hope you don't mind me coming in here but "swvillafan" #9 shows a link to Shields Up

I tried the Shields Up Test on common ports and got failed.
I thought I was covered.Any ideas.

Depends on what security setting you have zonealarm on. You just need to increase it.