Removing Symantec/Norton Antivirus

About 3 times I have used the removal tool from the Symantec/norton site.

Does that mean the removal tool doesn't work properly??

What do you use now for anti-virus protection?

...Jim Thompson

--
| James E.Thompson, P.E.                           |    mens     |
| Analog Innovations, Inc.                         |     et      |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC\'s and Discrete Systems  |    manus    |
| Phoenix, Arizona  85048    Skype: Contacts Only  |             |
| Voice:(480)460-2350  Fax: Available upon request |  Brass Rat  |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com |    1962     |
             
 I love to cook with wine     Sometimes I even put it in the food

If things are 'fine' then it usually works well enough. But if anything is off then it often leaves remnants, which aren't usually a problem for anything other than Symantec programs. Like removing an older version of NAV to install a new one: the new install fails.

I dumped Norton a long time ago, Way to intrusive the way it works.

--
Joe Leikhim K4SAT
"The RFI-EMI-GUY"©

"Treason doth never prosper: what\'s the reason?
For if it prosper, none dare call it treason."

"Follow The Money"  ;-P

It means that the removal went oke, for 3 friends of friends computers. I either install Avg or Avast, with Winpatrol and the runtime part of Spybot(Teatimer). Occasional scan with Spybot and Adaware and RootkitRevealer.exe (Sysinternals MS). For 2 or 3 dangerous viri, a removal tool(free) from macafee has done wonders, when I need one, google most of the times knows the tool. Current score on my comp: One rootkit malware killed by macafee tool in the last two years,origin and source of contamination unknown. XP Pro SP3, semi-auto update(I decide when and what.)

"Jim Thompson" wrote in message news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com...

Virus protection progs are really not all that different. The important factor is their data base of known viruses. Any good program needs to update frequently. SEP is Symantec's end point protectection. They bought out a really good engine. AVG works fine. I don't care for McAfee.

Tom

I use ESET NOD32. Recommended by the IT guy from a friends small (20 person) software company. Next choice would be Trend Micro.

The IT guy and my friend heavily advise against Norton - uses too many resources, thus slowing down the system.

"Jim Thompson" skrev i meddelelsen news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com...

Anything Symantec is bloated crap!

That particular beast is a bastard to get completely rid off b.t.w. It leaves remnants around that one has to clean off manually.

I use Computer Associates "CA Anti Virus" because one can buy *just that* and not all the other crap like firewall, anti-spam and what-ever-else they are peddling. The licensing bundles are sized for me also.

I have found

to be easy to use and free.

donald

Paul Urbanus wrote:

(alt.binaries.schematics.electronic removed from To: line)

It is also recommended by a guy whose opinion I value in these matters. In fact, they have become a sponsor of his

--and he is VERY discriminating about the sponsors he accepts (though he recommended NOD32 before that financial link existed).

Interesting. In over 20 years of buying CA software stuff (both before and after becoming part of the Computer Associates label) every lick of it has done the job cleanly, efficiently and with decent ease of use. Sometimes the next release after CA bought the product,it was significantly better. Perhaps they are doing something right.

--
Dirk

http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK
http://www.theconsensus.org/ - A UK political party
http://www.onetribe.me.uk/wordpress/?cat=5 - Our podcasts on weird stuff

First ask yourself *why* you think you need an antivirus program of any sort, and then think if there are better ways to attack the root of the problem. Rather than running your PC in a straight jacket re-checking every file that is every opened, consider first if there are ways to stop malware getting on to your PC in the first place.

Never use MS email software (OE or O), use IE as little as possible (and lock it down to "high" security), make sure your incoming email is scanned (preferably at your ISP, or your own email gateway) and all executable attachments are removed, use a real firewall between your PC and untrusted computers (that may well include other family members, not just the Internet), check any dodgy downloads carefully, and most importantly of all - use your head!

For on-demand scanning of downloads (and scanning of emails if your ISP does not do it, or you don't trust them), try clam

On-demand virus scanners and complicated windows firewalls are an amazing waste of time, money, and PC resources, and they are always playing catch-up. A few proper precautions gives you better security for nothing.

(Of course, you could always switch to Linux...)

and then think if there are better ways to attack

re-checking every file that is every opened, consider

place.

Agreed, been running without AV for years. I was sick of my Norton AV and just uninstalled it at some point.

it down to "high" security), make

I've been using OE for years without any problem. It is only a problem if you're an idiot and open attachments you don't know (especially exe files). No problem after years of use without AV. If attachment looks suspicious, I save it and open in hex editor.

Firefox and enabled cookies here, no problems either.

gateway) and all executable attachments are

well include other family members, not just the

use your head!

Nothing beats a "helpfull" ISP that blocks spam for you on their own initiative, including 1% of "collateral damage". Preferably using ORBL or similar unreliable database, which should be used only for consultation and not just flatly blocking emails. And of course, if asked, they will claim to not perform any kind of filtering. Comcast comes to mind.

But AV on the mail server is indeed nice to have.

not do it, or you don't trust them), try clam

Neat, per file scanning on demand, comes handy sometimes.

M

The problem is when malicious email coding tells OE to execute the attachment (or other unpleasant code) automatically when you simply view the email. Since OE6 this has been less of a problem, as the security setting is "high" by default, but I simply would not trust OE (or Outlook) - there have been too many instances of exploitable bugs and major design flaws (such as ActiveX, and in particular the concept of "ActiveX controls marked safe for scripting"). Even with "high" security, you are open to web bugs (which tell potential attackers your IP address and that you are online) and other such nasties.

And why would you bother looking at suspicious attachments in a hex editor? I would think the "shift delete" treatment is more appropriate.

The same here. At my office, IE is banned for all but a couple of specific sites - people use Firefox or Opera (by personal preference).

I forgot to add one other important security setting - turn off the "hide extension for known file types" setting in explorer. Then you won't fall for the old "joke.txt.exe" ploy.

(or other unpleasant code) automatically when you

security setting is "high" by default, but I simply

exploitable bugs and major design flaws (such as ActiveX,

scripting"). Even with "high" security, you are open to web

and other such nasties.

would think the "shift delete" treatment is more

1-2 times I suspected what appeared to be a normal attachment so I checked it out first just in case.

extension for known file types" setting in explorer.

There's probably nobody in this NG that doesn't do this first time after installing a fresh copy of Windows. But yes, it happens.

M