Opinions on Norton AntiVirus 10?

RE: ClamXav:

> Regardless, the product is for scanning emails. That's
what it was written for, that is what it does.

The "X" version is just ClamAV with a GUI.

If you don't resend weird attachments on to windows users, then ClamXAV
is a waste of time. If you DO send on attachments to windows users,
you'd be much better served getting clamav installed on your mailserver.
ClamXAV is only useful in cases where that is not possible. Though if
your mailserver doesn't take anti-virus measures then you really need a
new mailserver.

Lewis:

Not true.
Per my tests ClamXav does real time monitoring of designated folders

My tests:
Download an infected test file called the EICAR test file.
http://www.eicar.org/anti_virus_test_file.htm

Dnload to unwatched folder: no alarm
Drag dnloaded file to a watched folder: an alarm displayed
 >> Stay informed about: Opinions on Norton AntiVirus 10? 

This message is not archived
 >> Stay informed about: Opinions on Norton AntiVirus 10? 

In article
<jollyroger-DCC3A0.07475212022008.RemoveThis@earthlink.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>,
Jolly Roger <jollyroger.RemoveThis@pobox.com> wrote:

> In article <120220081204452590%guenther@fischerplast.de>,
> Guenther <guenther.RemoveThis@fischerplast.de> wrote:
>
> > In article <120220080154492625%nospam@nospam.invalid>, nospam
> > <nospam.RemoveThis@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> >
> > > care to explain how? what virus might one get? what is it called?
> > > what does it do once it infects the user's machine? this should be
> > > interesting, particularly since there aren't any mac viruses in the
> > > wild that one can get.
> >
> > You may get a virus with word macros. Some documents require to use
> > macros - then it does not help to switch the macro option off.
> > if you do not need macros or if you dont even work with Word or Excel -
> > you may go without a virus checker.
>
> Name just one, please.

It is sufficient, that Microsoft warns of Macros, that may contain a
Virus. Word 2004 has no built-in protection for taht case, and
Microsoft suggests to switch off macro execution or to use a virus
scanner. Good advise, man....

Well, I get quite often Word documents with macros, in fact, most of
our comany documents work that way. I hate to see, that those, who send
it to me to work on their document, did not check for a virus. As I do
so, I can warn them in the case of an infection and stop further
distribution.
I got about 8 to 12 word macro infected files during the last 12 months.

Actually, this is not doing any harm on my mac - I have a virus checker
running.
 >> Stay informed about: Opinions on Norton AntiVirus 10? 

In article <120220081523229185%guenther@fischerplast.de>,
Guenther <guenther DeleteThis @fischerplast.de> wrote:

> In article
> <jollyroger-DCC3A0.07475212022008 DeleteThis @earthlink.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>,
> Jolly Roger <jollyroger DeleteThis @pobox.com> wrote:
>
> > In article <120220081204452590%guenther@fischerplast.de>,
> > Guenther <guenther DeleteThis @fischerplast.de> wrote:
> >
> > > In article <120220080154492625%nospam@nospam.invalid>, nospam
> > > <nospam DeleteThis @nospam.invalid> wrote:
> > >
> > > > care to explain how? what virus might one get? what is it called?
> > > > what does it do once it infects the user's machine? this should be
> > > > interesting, particularly since there aren't any mac viruses in the
> > > > wild that one can get.
> > >
> > > You may get a virus with word macros. Some documents require to use
> > > macros - then it does not help to switch the macro option off.
> > > if you do not need macros or if you dont even work with Word or Excel -
> > > you may go without a virus checker.
> >
> > Name just one, please.
>
> It is sufficient, that Microsoft warns of Macros, that may contain a
> Virus. Word 2004 has no built-in protection for taht case, and
> Microsoft suggests to switch off macro execution or to use a virus
> scanner. Good advise, man....

Word for Mac asks you if you want to run macros. Just say no.

> Well, I get quite often Word documents with macros, in fact, most of
> our comany documents work that way. I hate to see, that those, who send
> it to me to work on their document, did not check for a virus. As I do
> so, I can warn them in the case of an infection and stop further
> distribution.

You paid for antivirus software so you can play nanny to all your
Windows-using friends then.

> I got about 8 to 12 word macro infected files during the last 12 months.
>
> Actually, this is not doing any harm on my mac - I have a virus checker
> running.

In all likelihood not a single one of them would have an affect on your
Mac. Name just one you have received that can affect Mac.

--
Note: Please send all responses to the relevant news group. If you
must contact me through e-mail, let me know when you send email to
this address so that your email doesn't get eaten by my SPAM filter.

JR
 >> Stay informed about: Opinions on Norton AntiVirus 10? 

nospam <nospam.TakeThisOut@nospam.invalid> writes:

> stuffit is useful if one downloads or is sent a stuffit file. they may
> not be as common as they once were, but they do still exist and it's
> helpful to be able to unstuff those files.

Unfortunately, yes, folks still use .sit files. And unlike
before, stuffit expander is no longer included as part of
the standard distribution. To get the current version of
it requires submitting an e-mail address to Allume (and
"by ... downloading this file, you are signing up to
receive periodic email from us" Allume can blow it out
their asses, thanks.)

Get it if you absolutely must open some .sit file someone
sends you, but I encourage you to suggest to folks that
they stop using those things while decompressing them
requires folks to go through those unfortubnate additional
steps.

It's simply unnecessary now and has become unfriendly, too.

--
Plain Bread alone for e-mail, thanks. The rest gets trashed.
No HTML in E-Mail! -- http://www.expita.com/nomime.html
Are you posting responses that are easy for others to follow?
http://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/2000/06/14/quoting
 >> Stay informed about: Opinions on Norton AntiVirus 10? 

In article <halsj.119$pl4.94@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net>,
"CZ" <CZ.DeleteThis@no99spam.com> wrote:

> If you DO send on attachments to windows users,
> you'd be much better served getting clamav installed on your mailserver.

Correction:

If you do send attachments to Windows users, THEY would be better served
if ClamAV were installed on THEIR mail server. ; )

--
Note: Please send all responses to the relevant news group. If you
must contact me through e-mail, let me know when you send email to
this address so that your email doesn't get eaten by my SPAM filter.

JR
 >> Stay informed about: Opinions on Norton AntiVirus 10? 

In article
<jollyroger-F7CBCC.12310912022008.RemoveThis@earthlink.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>,
Jolly Roger <jollyroger.RemoveThis@pobox.com> wrote:

> If you do send attachments to Windows users, THEY would be better served
> if ClamAV were installed on THEIR mail server. ; )

Agreed. It's not my job to protect those losers.
 >> Stay informed about: Opinions on Norton AntiVirus 10? 

In article
<jollyroger-2F01FC.08553312022008 RemoveThis @earthlink.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>,
Jolly Roger <jollyroger RemoveThis @pobox.com> wrote:

> In article <120220081523229185%guenther@fischerplast.de>,
> Guenther <guenther RemoveThis @fischerplast.de> wrote:
>
> > In article
> > <jollyroger-DCC3A0.07475212022008 RemoveThis @earthlink.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>,
> > Jolly Roger <jollyroger RemoveThis @pobox.com> wrote:
> >
> > > In article <120220081204452590%guenther@fischerplast.de>,
> > > Guenther <guenther RemoveThis @fischerplast.de> wrote:
> > >
> > > > In article <120220080154492625%nospam@nospam.invalid>, nospam
> > > > <nospam RemoveThis @nospam.invalid> wrote:
> > > >
.....
> > It is sufficient, that Microsoft warns of Macros, that may contain a
> > Virus. Word 2004 has no built-in protection for taht case, and
> > Microsoft suggests to switch off macro execution or to use a virus
> > scanner. Good advise, man....
>
> Word for Mac asks you if you want to run macros. Just say no.

Well, if I say no, I can´t use some documents. If I use macros, there
is no virus protection (that is, what Microsoft says).

I need to run macros... :-(

> > Well, I get quite often Word documents with macros, in fact, most of
> > our comany documents work that way. I hate to see, that those, who send
> > it to me to work on their document, did not check for a virus. As I do
> > so, I can warn them in the case of an infection and stop further
> > distribution.
>
> You paid for antivirus software so you can play nanny to all your
> Windows-using friends then.

.... and for myself. I use a Windows laptop for some programs not
available on macs. Yes, the mac is very weak in CAD, FEM, computing,
etc.
That requires some exchange of documents - word files among them.

> > I got about 8 to 12 word macro infected files during the last 12 months.
> >
> > Actually, this is not doing any harm on my mac - I have a virus checker
> > running.
>
> In all likelihood not a single one of them would have an affect on your
> Mac.

May be. I did not test those sorted out and killed by the Antivirus
program - would you?

> Name just one you have received that can affect Mac.

Ask Microsoft and trust their information ... :-)
 >> Stay informed about: Opinions on Norton AntiVirus 10? 

In article <siegman-878068.12462211022008.TakeThisOut@nntp.stanford.edu>,
AES <siegman.TakeThisOut@stanford.edu> wrote:

> Any new inputs on this? [I find it very annoying to have NAV start up
> and mess around with my system every time I put in a CD or save a
> downloaded PDF or email msg; so I suppose I'm really looking for an
> excuse to turn the damn program off.]

Because there are no Mac viruses in the wild, Norton Antivirus is either
100% effective or 0% effective, depending on which way you look at it.

In any event, it is just as effective as, and just as useful as,
installing anti-werewolf and anti-vampire software on your Mac; it
protects you from a make-believe threat.

If you are actually concerned that somehow, you might be the world's
first OS X user to contract a computer virus, there are free apps (such
as ClamX AV) which in PC Home tests are faster and more effective than
Norton Antivirus (at least at detecting Windows viruses), and don't have
Symantec's bad rep for hosing your system.

--
Photography, kink, polyamory, shareware, and more: all at
http://www.xeromag.com/franklin.html
 >> Stay informed about: Opinions on Norton AntiVirus 10? 

In article <gkreme-D37C5C.02502512022008 RemoveThis @news.giganews.com>,
Lewis <gkreme RemoveThis @gmail.com> wrote:

> Clamav is not for fighting viruses on Macs, it is for fighting viruses
> on mailservers, most of them running some flavor of "Unix" including,
> but not limited, to Macs.

True.

But ClamX AV, which is a different fork of the open-source Clam AV
project, is Mac antivirus software. Sounds like you're confusing the
two. (The ClamX AV package uses the Clam AV engine.)

--
Photography, kink, polyamory, shareware, and more: all at
http://www.xeromag.com/franklin.html
 >> Stay informed about: Opinions on Norton AntiVirus 10? 

On Tue, 12 Feb 2008 17:42:12 +0100, Guenther <guenther RemoveThis @fischerplast.de> wrote:
> In article
>> You paid for antivirus software so you can play nanny to all your
>> Windows-using friends then.

> ... and for myself. I use a Windows laptop for some programs not
> available on macs. Yes, the mac is very weak in CAD, FEM, computing,
> etc.
> That requires some exchange of documents - word files among them.

Windoze has almost as feeble a CAD presence as the Mac (in EDA at
least). Windoze 64 is still dead in the water, and most serious
simulators need >4G these days.

Is there a CAD tool that needs to read tord files?

A bientot
Paul
--
Paul Floyd http://paulf.free.fr
 >> Stay informed about: Opinions on Norton AntiVirus 10? 

In article <1ic5p96.11mrbuo6hht2vN%mikePOST@TOGROUPmacconsult.com>,
mikePOST RemoveThis @TOGROUPmacconsult.com (Mike Rosenberg) wrote:

> It was Norton Disk Doctor specifically, and Norton Utilities in general,
> not Norton Anti-Virus, that could cause serious directory damage (which,
> fortunately, Disk Warrior could easily repair).

Norton Antivirus has been implicated in problems of its own, though.
Specifically, bugs in Norton AV have been known to cause kernel panics,
corrupt iPod music transfers, silently corrupt Adobe Photoshop and Adobe
Indesign files on save (this particular nasty problem hit some of my
clients), and cause problems with network file transfers.

There is also, or was also--I have no idea if it's been fixed, as I do
not use Norton--a problem in some Norton AV versions which under certain
circumstances could cause a user not to be able to authenticate. So if,
for example, you go to install software, do an Apple system update, or
take other actions which require you to enter your password, nothing
would happen and the action would fail. I've seen this problem twice,
and in both cases a reinstall of OS X was necessary to fix it.

Symantec has also, on three occasions in the last two years, released
flawed virus database updates which cause NAV to wrongly identify
harmless files as "viruses." One of these caused it to wrongly describe
a Mac virtual memory file as a "virus;" users who tried to fix the
supposed "virus" hosed their systems but good.

And finally, the uninstaller provided with every version of NAV since
version 9 doesn't work; it leaves the NAV kernel extension (the part of
NAV implicated in kernel panics) and some other files behind.

--
Photography, kink, polyamory, shareware, and more: all at
http://www.xeromag.com/franklin.html
 >> Stay informed about: Opinions on Norton AntiVirus 10? 

>> If you DO send on attachments to windows users, you'd be much better
>> served getting clamav installed on your mailserver.

>Correction: If you do send attachments to Windows users, THEY would be
>better served
if ClamAV were installed on THEIR mail server. ;


JR:

What technology does OS X have that obviates antivirus s/w?

Or is it simply the lack of Mac viruses that makes the Mac "safe"?
 >> Stay informed about: Opinions on Norton AntiVirus 10?