Tech: Norton Sucks - what's better?

Subject: Tech: Norton Sucks - what's better?
From: Joe Offer
Date: 09 Nov 22 - 12:22 AM

I've used Norton Antivirus and Norton Utilities for maybe 30 years, but I'm getting frustrated. I don't mind paying $30 a year for security protection for my computer, but Norton keeps wanting to escalate me to $120 a year to serve my paranoia. Lately, I've been swamped with messages from Norton trying to guild me into upgrading to higher paranoia levels.
Is there a rational antivirus and protection package that will do the job better than Norton without all the upsell nag messages?

-Joe-

Subject: RE: Tech: Norton Sucks - what's better?
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 09 Nov 22 - 12:43 AM

Joe, several years ago I had a big problem getting the Kaspersky software to play nicely with my Windows environment, so decided to explore the free security suite my internet provider offers (I use Spectrum). They want your computers to be secure, it's in their best interest, so they provide software for that purpose. The security package might be an offshoot of McAffe, but it seems to work fine. They are generous with the software - my account lets me add something north of a dozen machines around the house, should I have them. Separately, I pay $36 a year for Malwarebytes because they seem to be able to catch other real-time malware and that account covers my desktop, my laptop, and my smartphone. (With these two consider it a "belt and suspenders" approach.)

I was thinking about switching to AT&T's fiber optic system, and looked at their offerings - they also have security software. It's there for customers to download and deploy. It seems silly to spend extra if you don't have to.

Subject: RE: Tech: Norton Sucks - what's better?
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 09 Nov 22 - 03:46 AM

Bitdefender is good for me.

Subject: RE: Tech: Norton Sucks - what's better?
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 09 Nov 22 - 08:07 AM

What is wrong with windows defender?

Subject: RE: Tech: Norton Sucks - what's better?
From: Charmion
Date: 09 Nov 22 - 08:17 AM

This problem just went away when I bought an Apple machine.

Subject: RE: Tech: Norton Sucks - what's better?
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 09 Nov 22 - 01:47 PM

Apple isn't immune.

Subject: RE: Tech: Norton Sucks - what's better?
From: Charmion
Date: 09 Nov 22 - 02:54 PM

Nothing’s immune to maximum malice, but Apple is pretty sturdy.

Subject: RE: Tech: Norton Sucks - what's better?
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 10 Nov 22 - 04:18 AM

Linux boxes are just as secure as Apple at a fraction of the price if that is your main concern.

Windows defender is OK-ish but far from the best.

Subject: RE: Tech: Norton Sucks - what's better?
From: DaveRo
Date: 10 Nov 22 - 04:30 AM

ChromeOs (chromebooks, chromepads, chromeboxes ...) are pretty immune too AFAIK.

Windows isn't the only game in town for 'mere mortals' who don't have pots of money for Macs or the technical curiosity to run Linux.

I think Joe has or had a Chromebook.

Subject: RE: Tech: Norton Sucks - what's better?
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 10 Nov 22 - 04:42 AM

I would go with that Dave. I would say though that Linux Mint is as close to Windows as I have seen and does not really need any extended technical ability. Mind you I was a HP-UX high availability expert so maybe I think that anying UX-ish is easy :-)

Subject: RE: Tech: Norton Sucks - what's better?
From: Stanron
Date: 10 Nov 22 - 07:26 AM

Wow D the G. Something we agree on.

I've been using Linux Mint for almost a decade. It's brilliant. Windows users have to ween themselves off familiar Microsoft software to take advantage of it, but the benefits are substantial. Not needing anti virus software running all the time is just one of them.

Subject: RE: Tech: Norton Sucks - what's better?
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 10 Nov 22 - 08:11 AM

What we have in common will be far greater than our differences, Stanron.

Subject: RE: Tech: Norton Sucks - what's better?
From: Charmion
Date: 10 Nov 22 - 09:31 AM

I agree that Apple products cost more than normal people want to, or can, pay.

I was able to write my Mac off as a business expense because I’m a book editor, and my last (and unlamented) Windows machine had died of disc failure the very day I signed a fat contract for a new project.

With a massive manuscript due to land within the week and a demanding deadline, I had zero time to shop around, let alone learn Linux. Time is the second-most important factor in a business spending decision, and the extra layout was justified when new Mac arrived the day before the manuscript did. I had it up and running, stuffed with specialized software and bookmarks, when the FedEx driver rang the doorbell. That was three years and dozens of seamlessly installed updates ago, and I’ve never looked back.

So far, it has not shown the slightest sign of malware, and its various proprietary on-board blockers spare me endless twiddling. The Windows computer the Mac replaced had to be sanitized almost daily to get rid of parasitical toolbars and similar hijack adware. None of that on the Mac.

Subject: RE: Tech: Norton Sucks - what's better?
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 10 Nov 22 - 09:57 AM

I wonder how you were using your Windows machine if that stuff crept in regularly? Windows Firewall, antivirus software, Malwarebytes, they are free or easy to use and prevent all of that malware from entering. Good browser extensions to keep out adware. Also safe browsing practices.

Sophos is the security site most connected with Apple, at least it was in the past.

Subject: RE: Tech: Norton Sucks - what's better?
From: Charmion
Date: 10 Nov 22 - 11:58 AM

Yeah, sure, Stilly, but I had no luck training Edmund (who shared the machine) to watch what he was doing on line. Windows Firewall caught a lot of it, but not nearly enough, and I was tired of shelling out for Norton and MacAfee and their ilk. I figure the Mac has paid its excess cost back already by taking care of all that for me.

Also, more to the point, I don't enjoy hunting -- and paying -- for the latest in preventive software to protect me from arseholes of the world. Tweaking the computer is not what I do for fun. Others' mileage may vary.

Subject: RE: Tech: Norton Sucks - what's better?
From: MaJoC the Filk
Date: 10 Nov 22 - 01:49 PM

I'll save the coredump, unless severely provoked. I'd still advise you, Charmion, to invest in antivirus measures beyond just not using MS-Windows: some years ago, a botnet was discovered that specialised in hijacking MacOS systems, several hundred of which were found to be in Apple's HQ.

Even UNIX systems (including Linux, and MacOS under the covers) aren't immune, as I found out the hard way at least three times. It just happens that MS-Windows offers the lowest-hanging fruit for the bar stewards, but anybody on any OS can get phished or otherwise victimised.

Subject: RE: Tech: Norton Sucks - what's better?
From: robomatic
Date: 10 Nov 22 - 04:37 PM

Not an expert (me).

Over the years I've been attacked a couple of times by the type of software that threatens to expose your internet wanderings and threatens to lock up your system. I haven't conquered them but since I set up several accounts when I bought the computer I've been able to log in to a spare account and save anything I really needed to from data files.

Otherwise I use free versions of Malwarebytes and AVG free. They want to sell you on their other benefits and abilities to fix your system, especially AVG.

I would like to learn more about viruses and detecting them, for now I haven't seen a good primer or educational text on the subject.

Just my .02 bitcoins...

Subject: RE: Tech: Norton Sucks - what's better?
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 10 Nov 22 - 08:12 PM

What MaJoC said - Apple has been targeted. That is what I was thinking without pulling statistics, but that's why I brought up Sophos - they tend to focus on Apple products.

robo, I used free versions of various products over the years - AVG was one of them. Also Avast for a while, and a long time ago, Comodo, but it got really ponderous. I paid for different programs over the years - decades ago Norton/Symantec. In the last 10 years or so I paid for Kaspersky for maybe 5 of them, but it got to where it wasn't playing nice with Windows. That is when I decided to see what Spectrum was offering (I read an article talking about the offerings from each Internet Provider, and how they were generally robust). I had been using the free Malwarebytes, but decided to go ahead and pay for that since it had saved my bacon a couple of times when crap did get into the computer. I mentioned above that it can go on three devices, so averages out to $1 a month per device.

I never intentionally used McAfee because I hate their marketing behavior. And I hated that some of the other programs I used did their updates with a screen that had to be unchecked to deselect a free trial of McAfee. A couple of times I missed it and and to delete the McAfee crap. If Spectrum is using something of theirs it isn't branded that way, but I read a remark about the source of the software ages ago and it may be related. My ex seems to like McAfee ok on his computer and smart phone.

I just pulled up a couple of the sites I like for reviews and they don't list as many free programs as they used to. Tom's Guide has reviews for paid and free programs.

Subject: RE: Tech: Norton Sucks - what's better?
From: DaveRo
Date: 11 Nov 22 - 03:41 AM

robomatic wrote: I would like to learn more about viruses and detecting them, for now I haven't seen a good primer or educational text on the subject.

I don't know of a 'primer' to learn about viruses - as malware of all sorts is still called. I googled, but mainly got sites that tell you how to prevent malware, not tell you how it works. I've acquired my knowledge of malware over decades of reading about it on technical websites. Like this one which was delivered to me via RSS yesterday:
Windows breaks under upgraded IceXLoader malware

Sometimes something interests me further - why does the language that a virus is written in affect detection? - and I might look into that.

But such pieces are full of jargon: delivery chain, C2 server, dropper, payload. So a beginner would need to use e.g. wikipedia to understand those terms.

One thing to beware of. AntiVirus companies are big advertisers and technical sites - like the PC magazines of yesterday - don't like to offend them. You're unlikely to find them suggesting that AV programs are a waste of money, or that they actually make PCs more insecure - though you will find reputable security researchers who have said both of those. (I hold the latter view - but not the former - fwiw.)

So read a respected independant security expert. Someone like Brian Krebs. Maybe poke about in his site.

Above all, as with trying Linux, you need to be technically curious, to want to understand how things work. Then you might be able to understand why you shoukd or shoukd not install an AV.

Subject: RE: Tech: Norton Sucks - what's better?
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 11 Nov 22 - 03:59 AM

PC Mag's take in October this year.

Subject: RE: Tech: Norton Sucks - what's better?
From: DaveRo
Date: 11 Nov 22 - 05:01 AM

From that PC Mag piece:

Microsoft Defender’s own developers seem to consider it a Plan B, rather than a main solution. If you install a third-party antivirus, Microsoft Defender goes dormant, so as not to interfere. If you remove third-party protection, Defender revives and takes up the job of defense again. The best antivirus programs, even free antivirus tools, perform significantly better in testing and offer more features.

Remember Windows Vista? Microsoft planned to secure Vista against the plague of viruses that began to appear with XP. But by then the Antivirus industry had come into existance - it would have stopped their AV programs working and put them out of business - and they hit MS with antitrust suits.

In another change, Microsoft had planned to lock down its Vista kernel in 64-bit systems, but will now allow other security developers to have access to the kernel via an API extension, Smith said. Additionally, Microsoft will make it possible for security companies to disable certain parts of the Windows Security Center when a third-party security console is installed, the company said...

[From Microsoft changes Vista over antitrust concerns]

Windows was made more insecure by design under the influence of AV vendors. And it's still like that: Microsoft maintains an uneasy truce with AV vendors.

In a well designed secure operating system 3rd Party AV programs like Norton should not be able to work. Apple doesn't allow it!

Subject: RE: Tech: Norton Sucks - what's better?
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 11 Nov 22 - 08:30 AM

I have not found, or yet needed, a decent antivirus for Linux either. Although I do use Cyberghost VPN on Raspberry Pi for (nearly) nefarious activities :-D

Subject: RE: Tech: Norton Sucks - what's better?
From: MaJoC the Filk
Date: 11 Nov 22 - 01:10 PM

There's a version of Sophos available for Linux systems. Can't express any opinions on it, and no idea what the price may be (we got it free as Uni members), but it's there.

FWIW, I use ClamAV, as that's available in both Debian and Ubuntu distributions' standard lists, for free; that, and serious (automated and manual) web-browser paranoia, serve my humble purposes. But I'm open to suggestions (and brickbats).

Quick, Jeeves! my asbestos mail-reading long-johns!

Subject: RE: Tech: Norton Sucks - what's better?
From: Bill D
Date: 11 Nov 22 - 07:16 PM

I used AVG.. it got tedious, so I switched to Avast. Now IT nags me to upgrade to a paid version, but I just ignore the nag windows and it catches about everything. I don't want to switch again, so I'll just stumble on...

Subject: RE: Tech: Norton Sucks - what's better?
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 28 Oct 23 - 12:22 PM

This is aimed more at industries than individuals, but it's still good to know: Octo Tempest cybercriminal group is "a growing concern"—Microsoft

The newsletter from Malwarebytes this week has some grim information about cybercriminals.

Octo Tempest is believed to be a group of native English speaking cybercriminals that uses social engineering campaigns to compromise organizations all over the world.

Initially the group made a name for itself by SIM swapping. SIM swapping, also known as SIM jacking, is the act of illegally taking over a target's cell phone number. This can be done in a number of ways, but the most common ones involve social engineering attacks on the victim's carrier.

In a security blog about Octo Tempest Microsoft states:

“Octo Tempest monetized their intrusions in 2022 by selling SIM swaps to other criminals and performing account takeovers of high-net-worth individuals to steal their cryptocurrency.”

Since then the group has expanded its range of activities to include targeting organizations providing cable telecommunications, email, and tech services, and partnering with the ALPHV/BlackCat ransomware group.

In our monthly ransomware reviews you will typically see ALPHV as the world's third most used ransomware-as-a-service (RaaS).

Read the rest at the link.