sivran
Long Live The Suite
Premium
join:2003-09-15
Arlington, TX
clubs:
 ·RoadRunner Cable
| reply to jsts
Re: Norton AV 2003 vs Norton AV 2005?
I'll second kavuser's sentiments. I've developed quite the dislike of Norton recently. However...
quote:
2004 didn't work for me and I am reluctant to try 2005 if I don't need to.
You DO need to, IF you want to stick with Norton products. I'm sorry to say, NAV 2003 is woefully inadequate against today's malware, and even in some cases yesterday's. The reason for this is 2003 does not have the unpackers (note: I am not referring to archives like zip and rar here, though NAV 2003 is lacking in that area too, it can't scan in RARs) that the newer versions do. It may have the definitions for virus x and virus y, but if they're "packed" with certain methods now commonly used, NAV 2003 will not detect them.
If you feel the need to be well protected (and hey, how many of us don't feel that need?) you should go out and buy a new AV product. The free ones quite frankly don't cut it. If you had problems with NAV 2004 you should consider making the switch to some other vendor's offering. Note also that some other vendors, such as McAfee, provide not only signature updates but engine updates, meaning you don't have to buy a new version every year like with Norton, which doesn't provide such updates.
--
TCPA - Treacherous Computing
Kerio 2.1.5 - Best damn firewall
Licenses should be per user, Ditch Norton! Get F-Prot! |
