NortonLifeLock Unveils Norton Crypto??

DISCOSPARTA

Boogie Warrior
wait what? :unsure:

Norton™ Crypto, a new feature designed to enable consumers to safely and easily mine cryptocurrency through its trusted Norton™ 360 platform. Starting tomorrow, select Norton 360 customers in Norton’s early adopter program will be invited to mine for Ethereum.

 

SpyderTracks

We love you Ukraine
Moderator
wait what? :unsure:

Norton™ Crypto, a new feature designed to enable consumers to safely and easily mine cryptocurrency through its trusted Norton™ 360 platform. Starting tomorrow, select Norton 360 customers in Norton’s early adopter program will be invited to mine for Ethereum.

This is such a publicity stunt. I don't trust Norton for a second to be able to secure transactions on the blockchain, it's not their line of expertise at all.

I wouldn't touch it with a bargepole personally, I'll more than likely end up being completely wrong as is often the case. Just not a fan of Norton at the best of times.
 

DISCOSPARTA

Boogie Warrior
So, instead of slowing your machine down only when it's protecting your computer, it will now offer to slow it down all the time :rolleyes:

exactly, it protects your computer by being so slow you cannot use it and get any viruses

Modern Problems Solutions GIF - ModernProblems Solutions ...
 

DISCOSPARTA

Boogie Warrior
This is such a publicity stunt. I don't trust Norton for a second to be able to secure transactions on the blockchain, it's not their line of expertise at all.

I wouldn't touch it with a bargepole personally, I'll more than likely end up being completely wrong as is often the case. Just not a fan of Norton at the best of times.

yrs ad yrs ago I had norton,

it came with a free game of figuring out how to uninstall it :rolleyes::unsure:
 

ubuysa

The BSOD Doctor
Moderator
yrs ad yrs ago I had norton,

it came with a free game of figuring out how to uninstall it :rolleyes::unsure:
Norton Utilities for MSDOS was a really useful tool, prior to that an unerase required a disk hack to manually restore the directory pointers. Norton Utilities (and other tools he produced) remained pretty useful until Peter Norton sold out to Symantec. They just wanted his well respected name, and they just churned out their own junk under the Norton name....
 
Norton Utilities for MSDOS was a really useful tool, prior to that an unerase required a disk hack to manually restore the directory pointers. Norton Utilities (and other tools he produced) remained pretty useful until Peter Norton sold out to Symantec. They just wanted his well respected name, and they just churned out their own junk under the Norton name....
Exactly this.

Norton built up a good name in the late 80s and early 90s and I used the tools heavily on both MSDOS and Mac System 7-9.

But them it changed and started using 50% of the system resources (on the Mac it was only really used to clean up files we’d got from infected PCs) and we asked our rental provider to leave it off our rentals.

You really needed every processor cycle when you were compiling COBOL on the PC or using DTP tools on the Mac…so really noticed the overhead when you only had an 5.0mhz 8088 or 7.8mhz 68090 CPU.
 

Bigfoot

VALUED CONTRIBUTOR
I see lots of comments on the forum rubbishing antivirus programmes, but no backup for this advice. I have had Norton for a long time and there has been no issue with performance for years. I fear much of the advice is based on ancient experience. The recent Which review of AV programmes said that the built in Windows Security did not perform as well as other AV software in its independent tests. It also stated that browser protection was limited to MS browsers (I.e. Edge), although this may have changed. I think it would be good to get a more balanced view with some supporting evidence. I am not saying that Which tests should be taken as gospel, but I am providing some evidence for my comments.
 

Bigfoot

VALUED CONTRIBUTOR
Exactly this.

Norton built up a good name in the late 80s and early 90s and I used the tools heavily on both MSDOS and Mac System 7-9.

But them it changed and started using 50% of the system resources (on the Mac it was only really used to clean up files we’d got from infected PCs) and we asked our rental provider to leave it off our rentals.

You really needed every processor cycle when you were compiling COBOL on the PC or using DTP tools on the Mac…so really noticed the overhead when you only had an 5.0mhz 8088 or 7.8mhz 68090 CPU.
Norton does not use 50% of PC resources nowadays - nowhere near. I have experienced other AV programmes installed by corporate IT hogging resources, but see no negative effect from Norton on my home PC.
 

SpyderTracks

We love you Ukraine
Moderator
Norton does not use 50% of PC resources nowadays - nowhere near. I have experienced other AV programmes installed by corporate IT hogging resources, but see no negative effect from Norton on my home PC.
No one suggested it does, that was a historical reference to decades ago.
 
Norton does not use 50% of PC resources nowadays - nowhere near. I have experienced other AV programmes installed by corporate IT hogging resources, but see no negative effect from Norton on my home PC.
It was simply to illustrate why I stopped using/trusting Norton back in the day…and that broken trust is why I won’t use it again. I have tried other solutions in the past when MS Defender was not very good, but I’d flip between them as one product became buggy, unreliable, untrustworthy/scammy, or over-sensitive in blocking legitimate processes (McAfee, Kaspersky, Trend Micro, et al).

I now just use the built in security on both my Mac & Windows 10 PCs.

Other than following general safe browsing/downloading practises, I don’t have anything else protecting my machines, and haven’t had any virus/trojan/malware warnings triggered by the built in systems.

AVTest does regular ‘state of the nation’ tests of loads of AV products - and you can see Windows built in security scores as highly as anything else…and you don’t have to pay for it.
 

ubuysa

The BSOD Doctor
Moderator
I see lots of comments on the forum rubbishing antivirus programmes, but no backup for this advice. I have had Norton for a long time and there has been no issue with performance for years. I fear much of the advice is based on ancient experience. The recent Which review of AV programmes said that the built in Windows Security did not perform as well as other AV software in its independent tests. It also stated that browser protection was limited to MS browsers (I.e. Edge), although this may have changed. I think it would be good to get a more balanced view with some supporting evidence. I am not saying that Which tests should be taken as gospel, but I am providing some evidence for my comments.
On these forums alone Norton has been shown to be the cause of a number of BSODs and other problems. Removing Norton cured the problems. In my work off the forum over many decades I have found Norton to be the cause of slowdowns and glitches in addition to BSODs, though it's not alone there, other antivirus tools cause issues too. Symantec/Norton stands out though. Still.

As far as review sites go, the first question to always ask is "how are they funded?". Nobody is truly independent and everyone has an agenda. If Microsoft did an AV review for eample, then you'd not be surprised to find Defender at the top....

In addition, all antivirus review testing depends on detection and yet detection is already old technology. Its flaw is that a detection technology can only block malware that it recognises. No detection technology can ever protect against zero-day attacks because it doesn't know how to recognise zero-day malware. Heuristics doesn't work either because it causes way too many false positives, that's why every system using heuristics that I've ever seen has it set to low or off.

The only technology that protects against all malware, including zero day attacks, is containment/sandboxing. Every unknown process runs in the sandbox, from where it can't affect any real resources. Instead resources are virtualised so that the malware doesn't know it's running contained in a sandbox. The downside to this is that you either need a vendor provided whitelist (which is always a tad risky) or you need to train your system to recognise safe processes and that can take a while.

Containment is the future, detection is the past.
 
Top