- home
- reviews
- news
- downloads
- cnet tv
HOLIDAY HELP DESK: Broadcasting live at 1:00 p.m., PT
- log in
- join CNET
- welcome,
- my profile
- log out

September 16, 2009 5:48 PM PDT

Norton 2010 in pictures

by Seth Rosenblatt

Symantec is betting heavily that program behavior is the future battlefront of security and is making a big push in its 2010 security program lineup with a behavioral engine called Quorum.

Take a tour of Norton Internet Security 2010 in this slideshow, and keep in mind that the look is very similar to Norton AntiVirus 2010. The biggest differences between the two include ancillary features, price, and the number of computers supported by one license.

Seth peers into the deep, dark corners of software so that you don't have to. He has yet to suffer a single nightmare about OS/2. You can follow him on Twitter.

Topics:: Security and spyware,; Windows Software

Tags:: Symantec,; Norton Internet Security 2010,; Norton AntiVirus 2010,; malware,; Quorum,; Insight,; behavior

Share:: Digg; Del.icio.us; Reddit; Facebook; Twitter

Recent posts from The Download Blog: Introducing the Utilities Starter Kit; Using Facebook and Twitter safely; Three free iPhone apps that make shopping easier; The last deal before Christmas; Opera 10.5 pre-alpha goes Chrome hunting; 'Driver' races out of history and onto iPhones; Yelp for Android now uploading photos; Today only: Get a free DVD ripper

Add a Comment (Log in or register) Showing 1 of 2 pages (55 Comments)

by markosph September 16, 2009 6:11 PM PDT

What I want from a anti virus is no frills and do the job without slowing my system down. I don't use a virus scanner anymore, the last one I used was AVG free. I tried Norton once and upon reboot my system didn't boot up. I don't understand why a fancy interface is needed.

When I fix peoples computers and they are slow, I ask if I can remove Norton (which comes with a lot of PC's) I remove it and the computer runs faster.

Like this Reply to this comment


by danielkza September 16, 2009 6:54 PM PDT: Agree 100%, that's why I use Avira, it matches pretty much everything you mention, it's streamlined, configurable, and has no fancy UI hiding everything from you.

You should give it a try, there are some some free 6-month licenses for the full Internet Security Suite scattered around the net (which I'm using); Like this


by markosph September 16, 2009 7:37 PM PDT: I might... I was accepted to test Microsoft's offering but haven't downloaded it.

I will look into Avira, thank you.; Like this


by nitespark September 16, 2009 8:08 PM PDT: If you want a lightweight yet great anti virus try nod32. It is one of the best anti-virus I have ever used. It only uses about 48 Mb of ram. Also it is only $40 for a one year license.

http://www.eset.com/; Like this


by deeppolverizingkidd September 16, 2009 9:50 PM PDT: Wow, all those people who had their Norton removed from you will be at a major risk.; Like this


by markosph September 16, 2009 10:09 PM PDT: Removed... and replaced with AVG... they all ask what will I use instead.; Like this


by markosph September 16, 2009 10:11 PM PDT: I have heard of nod32... does it work well with Windows 7 x64, that is what I will be running... right now its Vista x64.; Like this


by bitofbetterbutter September 17, 2009 7:36 AM PDT: I use NOD32 on both clients and servers on my network, so I guess that answers your 64bit question. I used Symantec for years until they came out with their major update about 3 years ago and it screwed with my network (it was probably my fault when I installed the upgrade, but it ruined about 3 weeks of my life) . I switched to NOD32 after that and the clients work great with very little user interaction, the admin console is better than Symantec's was 3 years ago, and I haven't been aware of any performance issues.

Symantec Corporate Edition was a completely different product from Norton, so ESET NOD32 personal edition might be different from the corporate edition as well. I can't speak to that since I don't use NOD32 at home. We're dealing with a different environment at home (no hardware firewall, no Group Policy, etc.), so the simplicity and protection of a full internet security suite makes sense. After reading several reviews and running a trial, I chose Norton Internet Security this year... now there's some irony for you!; Like this


by chi09 September 18, 2009 6:41 AM PDT: norton does not slow my computer down at all; Like this


by stockyjoe September 19, 2009 5:58 AM PDT: I think anyone in the know agrees with you. Norton is a sloth, especially their internet suites ugh. I got the 360 for my Mom's laptop and it seriously slowed it down. Finally removed it and got her Nod32. Nod32 rocks. Its fast, effective and its so non intrusive. Best of all it doesn slow your machine down..; Like this


by lilclinks September 19, 2009 8:49 AM PDT: Installing norton antivirus was the worst mistake i ever made. I ended up losing all my proyects, family photos, mp3 songs and had to re-install windows all over. Norton is the worst trojan i ever had in my comp. I have avast for almost 2 years and no problems at all, and its free!; Like this

by veilx September 16, 2009 6:23 PM PDT

Norton 2010 - Now Slowing you Computer down 10x Better!

Like this Reply to this comment


by Shanghai Kid September 18, 2009 5:13 AM PDT: Except it's not....; Like this


by SactoGuy018 September 16, 2009 8:45 PM PDT: I'm using Norton Internet Security 2010 right now (they released the final version just a few days ago) and it's actually a very nice program indeed.

Unlike previous NIS versions, NIS 2010 is very fast and uses a lot less system resources than before, so all the complaints about resource usage no longer really apply.; Like this Reply to this comment


by deeppolverizingkidd September 16, 2009 8:45 PM PDT: I am using NIS 2010 and it is fast. Starting with NIS 2009, it has been better, faster, and easier to use. Before that, Norton was a resource hog. If you haven't tried NIS 2010 yet, you should give it a try and see how much difference Norton has changed these past years. You can look at the reviews and see how different it is now.; Like this Reply to this comment

by Super-Sleuth September 16, 2009 9:05 PM PDT

I don't like Norton AntiVirus 2009 because it disables Windows Defender, and you can't get it to stop disabling it. I'm assuming 2010 will also have this problem.

Like this Reply to this comment


by deeppolverizingkidd September 16, 2009 9:47 PM PDT: Nope, NIS 2010 fixes that. Windows Defender will not be disable by NIS 2010.; Like this

by Hokulea September 16, 2009 9:17 PM PDT

I was a Norton naysayers for many years after Symantec took it over. Back in early 2003 I sent a query to Symantec regarding an abnormal amount of UDP traffic showing up in my network logs. Their first response was that it was "normal", but a few days later I got another email saying they were looking into the issue. It turned out to be the Slammer Worm. Though it didn't infect a lot of systems, it still resulted in a global Internet slowdown. It spread via UDP and exploited a vulnerability that MS had patched six months prior.

After using Norton's NIS 2009 for a year, and just recently updating to NIS 2010, I've been happy with the performance of both. They really do use very little system resources and are highly rated by independent testing labs for both virus discovery and removal. For a comparison with other apps see Neil J. Rubenking's Sept 14 review at PCmag.

Like this Reply to this comment


by markosph September 16, 2009 10:10 PM PDT: Thats good to hear... maybe I will give it a try and see what it does.; Like this


by Magallanes September 17, 2009 6:51 AM PDT: I GOT NORTON!
(meme); Like this Reply to this comment

by patterjp September 17, 2009 9:50 AM PDT

I ran into one problem, both with NIS 2009 and 2010. Once installed, they both caused a Right-Click failure with Explorer. Both were caused by 'IEContextMenu - Symantec Shared Component Shell Extension Module', which I was able to disable using 'ShellExView'. After that, programs worked great and no more problems with 'Right-Click' causing Explorer to crash.

Like this Reply to this comment


by Hokulea September 17, 2009 10:41 AM PDT: Both NIS 2009 and 2010 will also prevent System Restore from doing a rollback in Win XP and Vista. The solution is to disable "Norton Product Tamper Protection" in Settings > Miscellaneous Settings. After doing so, System Restore is able to roll back to a restore point. Once completed, re-enable Tamper Protection.; Like this


by langfdp December 17, 2009 5:26 AM PST: Some great advice here, I had exactly the same problem and this fixed it. Thanks patterjp......
But as far as the product goes WHAT A JOKE! How on earth could a bug like this have ever got past their testing. Appalling!; Like this


by Renegade Knight September 17, 2009 12:09 PM PDT: Norton is on the right track to look at software behavior. No need to check against an ever growing system bogging database of signatures. If something comes up as odd then it can cross check with the database.; Like this Reply to this comment

by DMBoricua September 17, 2009 12:15 PM PDT

Norton is the worst piece of software to ever run on your computer. Period. Why do they even keep trying to sell their products? No matter what how pretty eye catching their packaging is, that name isn't going to fool us. Its horrible software.

Like this Reply to this comment


by StevieD377 September 17, 2009 12:46 PM PDT: The worst piece of software ever? Really? In my experience with Norton 360 it has been the most amazing security suite I've ever used. It's light on system resources and really stays out of my way. That's the best part: I never see pop-up notifications unless it finds a threat. On top of that, I really believe Norton is leading the way in the world of computer security.; Like this


by play7 September 18, 2009 8:52 PM PDT: try buying the programs instead of stealing them.......; Like this


by ohreli September 17, 2009 1:03 PM PDT: After suffering with ZoneAlarm for years, I tried Norton Internet Security 2009 about six months ago...goodbye slow startups, system slowdowns, bugs, errors.....Norton is 'da bomb!!; Like this Reply to this comment

by gnesterenko September 17, 2009 1:20 PM PDT

For all of you that want a suite that will do everything norton does, better, in 1/2 the footprint, and for free (well not EVERYthing for free, but all you NEED for free, and everything for a nominal fee), I'd like to point you to Avast!. Great detection. Very few false positives. Extermely light-weight and no non-sence and no frills interface. Comes in x64 and 32 bits and works perfectly with Windows 7. Said goodbye to Norton back in college when I was working for the College House Computing dept which serviced all the residents machines. You coulndn't uninstall it, it would constantly crash, and on more then one occasion, it killed an OS partition. While I do believe that Norton 2010 may have made improvements in many of these areas, I also believe that there is aboslutely zero switching barrier for AntiVirus usage. Avast! and AVG are both excellent programs that when combined with Windows Defender, Firefox (with NoScript and AdBlock plug-ings) and of course a strong administrator-account password, make your machine pretty much bullet-proof. Mine survived 24/7 pluging into a major university's network (University of pennsylvania). Just as little background - the statistics were something like, an attempt at breach within 18 seconds of pluging into the network, and something like 5000+ breach attempts per day if left on 24 hours / day. For 4 years my comp did not get as much as a single malware infection, let alone virus/worm/trojan etc.

In other words, you do NOT need norton, and even though it may have improved, all that means is that it ONLY got MAYBE as good as Avast and AVG have been for a long time. Difference is the track record. The former is aweful. The later is awesome for the last 10 years or so. Choose what you will.

"The views expressed here are mine and do not reflect the official opinion of my employer or the organization through which the Internet was accessed."

Like this Reply to this comment


by Shanghai Kid September 18, 2009 5:16 AM PDT: The thing is.... Everything bad about Norton you have just mentioned has been improved upon a lot. Avast 1/2 the footprint of Norton? In your dreams.; Like this

by gnesterenko September 17, 2009 1:26 PM PDT

All the people comparing Norton to junk like Zone Alarm or anything else that costs anything morethen $30/ year and saying Norton is best - you are probably right - of all the Junk AVs out there from 'brand'-name companies, it probably IS the best. Before you commit yourself however, read up some reviews on the programs ability to A) detect viruses B) detect few false positives. You'll be surprised how far down the list Norton is compared to AVG or Avast!. You'll also be surprised how far UP the list Microsofts new AV solution that they are beta testing is - so surprised was I seeing those results that I am actually willing to make a switch to an MS product after being faithfuly served by Avast for 6 years now (which has a 100% track record with me - 6 years, zero infections)

"The views expressed here are mine and do not reflect the official opinion of my employer or the organization through which the Internet was accessed."

Like this Reply to this comment


by deeppolverizingkidd September 17, 2009 5:32 PM PDT: I've used AVG and Avast before. Those two make my computer really slow. It's detection system is not that good compare to Norton.; Like this


by wepo7777 September 17, 2009 4:09 PM PDT: This program is really good.
This program is light and use is convenient.
Virus detection performance is very high.
However, there is point of some pieces to improve.
Fire wall and injustice invasion prevention function are not escaping average level yet.
Is good if improvement of this part attains little more.; Like this Reply to this comment


by play7 September 17, 2009 6:33 PM PDT: How many are using stolen keys? or infected versions? :/ that doesnt help any programs abilty to work correct. YOu read this about any software and their problems people use stolen keys and programs. and of course you have problems.; Like this Reply to this comment

by Shanghai Kid September 18, 2009 5:09 AM PDT

A very, very proud owner of NAV 2009 and NAV 2010.

NOD32 uses 40MB of RAM? NAV 2009 uses 7MB.

Like this Reply to this comment


by deeppolverizingkidd September 19, 2009 1:21 PM PDT: True about the amount of resources the two uses. People who say NAV 2010 uses more resources than NOD32 is just lying and haven't tried NAV 2010 yet. If they did, they would know the difference and that NAV 2010 is better.; Like this


by dazhumon September 18, 2009 1:43 PM PDT: For years i've been switching my system security from Zonealarm, kaspersky, Nod32, to BitDefender and now to Symantec Endpoint protection version 12 for my home desktop and norton 360v3 for my other 2 laptop, both works really great especially S.E.P it doesn't slow down my desktop at all given me a totally safe networking environment and you can choose to install as server or client depends on your needs. As for NIS & NAV 2010 the only think that catch my sight is the fancy look of the application, i had tested the software and find that some issue of the program still can do more better. For example : false positive issue and firewall rules. I GAVE NIS 3.5 STARS OUT OF 5; Like this Reply to this comment

by shakethebabyass September 18, 2009 4:54 PM PDT

It is obvious most of these people that bash Norton have never even used it and if they have they used it back in the day when all of the big guys ruined your crappy old computers.

Now days, almost all of them are so light weight its like they are not there. Norton is by far the best one out there. I have used/tested and explorerd all of them. Northing is better than Norton. Not even ZoneAlarm who is my second choice.

Its ok not to like Norton, as is for you to share your opinion. However, you shouldnt automatically bash this paticular product (Norton 2010) based on past exsperiences if you havent even tried this one.

Like this Reply to this comment


by play7 September 18, 2009 8:51 PM PDT: You mean they dint even pay programs these days........ They use stolen versions and keys; Like this

by Jack-Bxp September 18, 2009 4:59 PM PDT

After using Avast Home for over 18 months now, i just can't see the point in going back to paying for an anti virus, regardless of the claims they make. I haven't used Norton for over 2 years now, i never had any major problems with it, other than it's large use of memory, but after my experience with Avast, i don't miss it one bit. Avast Home (free) gives great protection, in the time i've used it i haven't had any problems at all. I obviously visit some dodgy sites and have been alerted that the site poses a risk, or a virus has been detected ect. It even detects on P2P programs. But not once now in my Avast "experience" has a virus penetrated the Avast "on access protection". Granted that in the free version, the virus definitions are not live, but the updates come smoothly 3 times a day most days. I really don't see how it's even worth upgrading, just for live virus definitions, i mean, you'd have to be seriously unlucky to hit a brand new one - say an hour before you receive the downloaded virus updates huh ? It's never happened to me anyway. Just for the record, i use Avast on XP home and Vista 64bit and it works well on both. I'm on the XP now and Avast is using around 40mb. I use Comodo firewall along side Avast on both machines and they work well together in my experience. Both are free.

Like this Reply to this comment


by deeppolverizingkidd September 18, 2009 6:06 PM PDT: Norton has better detection that Avast. It's heuristic is also better then Avast. Norton is also faster then Avast. You should look at the comparison of the security products available these day and see the test that were run. Norton comes out on top in almost all categories.; Like this


by shakethebabyass September 18, 2009 6:33 PM PDT: I do not think choosing a free antivirus is such a bad idea as long as you know how to get the other things you need such as Antispyware/Firewall.

Those of us who pay are usually willing because of all the convienient services bundled into one software. For one price we get everything we need so that we do not have to worry about keeping all of the many software up and running all the time.

I personally think that a good Security suite with high detection rates, low resources needed, superb Tech and Customer support are worth paying for.; Like this Reply to this comment