Pc-cillin vs Norton Antivirus

[porkchop]

Which is better Norton, or pc-cillin. THe thing that sucks with norton is that u have to renew ur subscription. Do you have to renew in pc-cillin?

[Burke]

Norton.

[The Dude]

Yes they both have subscriptions. When my PC-chillin ran out I installed Norton's and it found 4 viruses that PC-chillin let by. Norton is better in my opinion. I got tired of reinstalling Norton when it ran out so I'm using AVG now. I do plan on buying a current version of Norton but I just can't afford it right now.

[Scott]

I use PC-cillin, seems to do okay for me, but then I don't have a lot of exposure to things that I could catch a virus from(except the wife on the network, she seems to get two a day thru email).

I used to use Norton's, but found it to a ridiculous resource hog, PC-cillin runs much smoother on my machine.

And yes, you gotta update the subscription.

[earthmofo]

Norton is better. It really isn't the resource hog that everyone thinks it is. When running it consumes only 10-12 meg which is a very small price to pay to keep a system safe.

[YeOldeStonecat]

Norton hands down...I've read several articles which show it to be one of the lowest resource hogs. They've gotten that product right on since version 2000.

And in my opinion it's better to buy the latest product when it comes out, rather than renew. Or at the very least, renew only once...and buy the latest product on that two year anniversary.

If you have more than one computer, get NAV Professional....only 20 bucks more...and covers two computers license wise...so it's less costly.

Symantec is usually on a September release product cycle.

[chpalmer]

PC-cillin has always been great for me with norton being buggy. You can go to the PC-Cillin web site and download the latest definitions after your sub runs out, but not with Norton. I had a machine at the office with Norton and had a virus sitting on it that Trends online housecall found. And- I dont know of any virus' yet that try and disable PC-Cillin as they do Norton av.

[blebs]

Whatever floats your boat. I will vote Norton hands down everytime. I've had a couple of people with PC Cillin show up with viruses that went undetected. I've never had one slip by with Norton, so long as the definitions are kept up to date.

[Roody]

Originally posted by YeOldeStonecat


And in my opinion it's better to buy the latest product when it comes out, rather than renew.

im curious about this YOSC. Is there a reason why you feel this way?

[YeOldeStonecat]

Originally posted by Roody
im curious about this YOSC. Is there a reason why you feel this way?

Sorry, I don't know how I glazed by this.

The anti-virus scan engine usually goes through a major overhaul each year, with new and better features. If you simply renew your subscription, you get definition (DAT) updates, along with minor engine updates.

Compare each new version (September product releases) against a merely updated subscription on an older product, and I believe you'll find the newer version gives better protection, newer, and better features. I started liking Symantec with 2000, 2001 got better, 2002 got the POP3 port scanning really good, IM protection too. I'd rather battle Klez and Yaha infections with the latest protection, not some outdated, renewed 5 times over NAV version 4.0 or something.

Virus's are so bad lately, I try to tell everyone to factor in 55 bucks a year as the cost of safe computing....fit it into the budget.

I will say though, I do find NAV 2003 a whisker sluggish in the interface...2002, along with Corp Edition for those of us lucky enough, are my fave.

For those with multiple computers, if you're not big enough to get Corporate Edition, Professional Edition is great. For 70 bucks or less, the box covers two computers license wise....so 35 bucks a pop at the most.

[neo960]

Originally posted by YeOldeStonecat
Sorry, I don't know how I glazed by this.

The anti-virus scan engine usually goes through a major overhaul each year, with new and better features. If you simply renew your subscription, you get definition (DAT) updates, along with minor engine updates.

Compare each new version (September product releases) against a merely updated subscription on an older product, and I believe you'll find the newer version gives better protection, newer, and better features. I started liking Symantec with 2000, 2001 got better, 2002 got the POP3 port scanning really good, IM protection too. I'd rather battle Klez and Yaha infections with the latest protection, not some outdated, renewed 5 times over NAV version 4.0 or something.

Virus's are so bad lately, I try to tell everyone to factor in 55 bucks a year as the cost of safe computing....fit it into the budget.

I will say though, I do find NAV 2003 a whisker sluggish in the interface...2002, along with Corp Edition for those of us lucky enough, are my fave.

For those with multiple computers, if you're not big enough to get Corporate Edition, Professional Edition is great. For 70 bucks or less, the box covers two computers license wise....so 35 bucks a pop at the most.

Also. with Norton you get free upgrade deals at compusa/amazon etc with a mail in rebate, and so the cost is usually $0 to upgrade to the latest version if you watch out for those deals every year.

[YeOldeStonecat]

Originally posted by neo960
Also. with Norton you get free upgrade deals at compusa/amazon etc with a mail in rebate, and so the cost is usually $0 to upgrade to the latest version if you watch out for those deals every year.

Everywhere, not just Comp/Amaz, it's shrink wrapped onto their retail boxes.

[Paft]

Originally posted by YeOldeStonecat
Compare each new version (September product releases) against a merely updated subscription on an older product, and I believe you'll find the newer version gives better protection, newer, and better features. I started liking Symantec with 2000, 2001 got better, 2002 got the POP3 port scanning really good, IM protection too. I'd rather battle Klez and Yaha infections with the latest protection, not some outdated, renewed 5 times over NAV version 4.0 or something.

Is it true that POP3 scanning screws you over in that it OPENS port 110 if not already open, thereby killing any firewalling protection you have?

[YeOldeStonecat]

Originally posted by Paft
Is it true that POP3 scanning screws you over in that it OPENS port 110 if not already open, thereby killing any firewalling protection you have?

I prefer NAT routers over software firewalls, and the router's closed on all incoming ports not matter what, unless I manually open a port. So for me, and all my client setups, that's a "no worry" for me if true. I haven't heard if it opens up the port on software firewalls, but I'm not that up on software firewalls anyways, since I don't use or support them.

I believe the POP3 port scanning is an important feature due to the way worms have developed...quickly hitting your e-mail client and sending themselves back out without you knowing it. POP3 scanning scans both directions, in POP3, and out SMTP.

[IntegraTypeR]

Norton is better..............

[Paft]

Originally posted by YeOldeStonecat
I prefer NAT routers over software firewalls, and the router's closed on all incoming ports not matter what, unless I manually open a port. So for me, and all my client setups, that's a "no worry" for me if true. I haven't heard if it opens up the port on software firewalls, but I'm not that up on software firewalls anyways, since I don't use or support them.

I believe the POP3 port scanning is an important feature due to the way worms have developed...quickly hitting your e-mail client and sending themselves back out without you knowing it. POP3 scanning scans both directions, in POP3, and out SMTP.

*chuckles* Though it would probally be better for the un-firewalled EU if their ISP/Mailserver scanned for virii at their end (such as I do).

Don't know though.. It sounds like a situation where one has to weigh the benefits (virus scanning) against the threats (open for hacking).

[YeOldeStonecat]

Originally posted by Paft
*chuckles* Though it would probally be better for the un-firewalled EU if their ISP/Mailserver scanned for virii at their end (such as I do).

Don't know though.. It sounds like a situation where one has to weigh the benefits (virus scanning) against the threats (open for hacking).

True...true....I wish there were more ISP's that scanned e-mail...I have many clients that would gladly pay for better e-mail that's had viri and spam removed on the "upstream end".

What is it on the NAV port scanning that holds what open re: POP3 port? Interesting point that I'd like to read up on...

[Paft]

Originally posted by YeOldeStonecat
True...true....I wish there were more ISP's that scanned e-mail...I have many clients that would gladly pay for better e-mail that's had viri and spam removed on the "upstream end".

What is it on the NAV port scanning that holds what open re: POP3 port? Interesting point that I'd like to read up on...

http://grc.com/faq-shieldsup.htm

9/10 down the page..

In order to filter your incoming eMail, an anti-virus eMail system interposes itself between your eMail client (your eMail reader) and your eMail server. Since eMail clients retrieve mail by connecting to a POP (Post Office Protocol) server on port 110, the anti-virus filter runs its own little POP server (generally called a POP Proxy) on your system's port 110. Then your eMail client retrieves its new mail from the computer's own port 110. But, as you have already detected, a side effect of this is that your machine's port 110 is "open" for detection and scanning by anyone else on the Internet!

[YeOldeStonecat]

Originally posted by Paft
http://grc.com/faq-shieldsup.htm

9/10 down the page..

Ahh yes....version 2001 did that....it would reconfigure your e-mail client's POP Server information.....it was a process called "poproxy". Symantec's first attempt at POP e-mail scanning....caused more problems than it did good in my experience with it (had to re-configure your e-mail client almost monthly because the settings blew up). But I never thought of it as "holding the ports open" any differently than running your e-mail client did. I still don't see how it's different. But they completely re-designed it for NAV 2002...I believe it truely just scans the ports now..instead of running that virtual POP server within those ports. So those ports are returned to the natural Windows state.

Either way, behind a NAT router, the port is still not visible from the public.