Norton auto-protect enough for stopping spyware hijacks?

"Thomas G. Marshall"
<tgm2tothe10thpower RemoveThis @replacetextwithnumber.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:jACJd.16475$qu2.12902@trndny08...
>
> Is it ever the case that the Norton AV "auto-protect", that continuing
> running thing, will protect from hijack attempts?

Yes, but only certain ones that use exploit code known to Norton.

> Or do I need a full time background anti-spyware in /addition/ to
Norton?

Yes, if you are going to insist on unsafe browsing (IE w/scripting
enabled, etc...).

> And if so, which works ok (and doesn't conflict) with norton-av auto
> protect? Does norton sell an anti-spyware program that works well?

Can't help ya there, I just keep current (I hope) and surf without
active scripting...only sometimes use detection/cleanup tools. Many AVs
are increasing their scope into adware and spyware, and if I'm not
mistaken a browser hijacker is an adware.

Using an alternative to IE (or MS for that matter) will do alot for you
security-wise.
 >> Stay informed about: Norton auto-protect enough for stopping spyware hijacks? 

On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 09:44:04 -0000, "Gaz" <gazter RemoveThis @msn.com> wrote:

>Thomas G. Marshall wrote:
<snip>
>> And if so, which works ok (and doesn't conflict) with norton-av auto
>> protect? Does norton sell an anti-spyware program that works well?

>I couldnt see why their anti-spyware software would work any better then
>their anti virus and firewall.
>
>Norton 2004 & 2005 products are horendous, unless you have a high spec
>system with 512mb of ram, your system will run like a three legged dog.

Years ago I tried one of the older versions of Norton on my 486, but
I had to uninstall it because it "run like a three legged dog".

Geo
 >> Stay informed about: Norton auto-protect enough for stopping spyware hijacks? 

Gaz coughed up:
> Thomas G. Marshall wrote:
>> Is it ever the case that the Norton AV "auto-protect", that
>> continuing running thing, will protect from hijack attempts?
>>
>> Or do I need a full time background anti-spyware in /addition/ to
>> Norton?
>>
>> And if so, which works ok (and doesn't conflict) with norton-av auto
>> protect? Does norton sell an anti-spyware program that works well?
>
> I couldnt see why their anti-spyware software would work any better
> then their anti virus and firewall.
>
> Norton 2004 & 2005 products are horendous, unless you have a high spec
> system with 512mb of ram, your system will run like a three legged
> dog.
>
> Gaz

Is that true? I was /really/ concerned about full-time virus protection
bandwidth impact, and I discovered that many did not like mcafee for that
reason, and switched to norton because it is less a bandwidth hog.

--
Forgetthesong,I'dratherhavethefrontallobotomy...
 >> Stay informed about: Norton auto-protect enough for stopping spyware hijacks? 

This message is not archived
 >> Stay informed about: Norton auto-protect enough for stopping spyware hijacks? 

Thomas G. Marshall wrote,
in post news:iE_Jd.20745$Vx2.19166@trndny01 :
>> Norton 2004 & 2005 products are horendous, unless you have a high spec
>> system with 512mb of ram, your system will run like a three legged
>> dog.
>>
>> Gaz
>
> Is that true? I was /really/ concerned about full-time virus protection
> bandwidth impact, and I discovered that many did not like mcafee for that
> reason, and switched to norton because it is less a bandwidth hog.


I don't know about 2004 or 2005, but my NAV2003 is great. I'm keeping
this AV software forever, or until I can no longer get updated signatures
or definition files. And that's all I have to say about thayet...
PZ
-
 >> Stay informed about: Norton auto-protect enough for stopping spyware hijacks? 

Cactus88 coughed up:
> Thomas G. Marshall wrote,
> in post news:iE_Jd.20745$Vx2.19166@trndny01 :
>>> Norton 2004 & 2005 products are horendous, unless you have a high
>>> spec system with 512mb of ram, your system will run like a three
>>> legged dog.
>>>
>>> Gaz
>>
>> Is that true? I was /really/ concerned about full-time virus
>> protection bandwidth impact, and I discovered that many did not like
>> mcafee for that reason, and switched to norton because it is less a
>> bandwidth hog.
>
>
> I don't know about 2004 or 2005, but my NAV2003 is great. I'm keeping
> this AV software forever, or until I can no longer get updated
> signatures or definition files. And that's all I have to say about
> thayet... PZ
> -

That's the one I have too (norton systemworks 2003 pro). I got it for $8.50
including shipping (!) in 2004. Always get the year prior to the current
year. You get the latest definitions for a year regardless.

It doesn't seem to impact my system too much, as far as I can tell.
HOWEVER, there /IS/ a that phantom winXP slowdown that folks often complain
about that no one yet understands (without the norton stuff even running).
XP over time just slows down, and there're a lot of folks who agree.

--
"It's easier to be terrified by an enemy you admire."
-Thufir Hawat, Mentat and Master of Assassins to House Atreides
 >> Stay informed about: Norton auto-protect enough for stopping spyware hijacks?