Norton Internet Security 2009 has started to detect, via it's Sonar advanced detection system,certain Rosetta work units as 'High Security Risks' and is automatically deleting them.
Is this a Norton or Rosetta problem?

Running XP fully up to date.

---

It's probably a norton issue.

And I recommend you not to use it at all... I hate norton for they make your PC crawl :/

Go to its settings and change some settings so it'll leave rosetta alone.

---

[quote]It's probably a Norton issue.

And I recommend you not to use it at all... I hate Norton for they make your PC crawl :/

Go to its settings and change some settings so it'll leave rosetta alone./quote]
Very old-fashioned, out of date view. Since 2007 it's reduced its number of processes, footprint, tends to have one of the fewest false positives, fastest scan of files and highest detection compared to its major competitors (NOD32, KIS, FSecure, McAfee, Avast and AVG). See AV Comparatives Performance Test October 2008 low in the page.

The OP might take a look at the file exclusion options. Not sure where it is in NIS. I use N360 here and it's under Virus & Spyware Protection Settings.

---

[quote]It's probably a Norton issue.

And I recommend you not to use it at all... I hate Norton for they make your PC crawl :/

Go to its settings and change some settings so it'll leave rosetta alone./quote]
Very old-fashioned, out of date view. Since 2007 it's reduced its number of processes, footprint, tends to have one of the fewest false positives, fastest scan of files and highest detection compared to its major competitors (NOD32, KIS, FSecure, McAfee, Avast and AVG). See AV Comparatives Performance Test October 2008 low in the page.

The OP might take a look at the file exclusion options. Not sure where it is in NIS. I use N360 here and it's under Virus & Spyware Protection Settings.

Yeah, I've heard that they tried fixing their resource-hogging programs. I still don't like it, simply because I've had bad experiences with it (for example, OP's problem) =/

---

Yeah, I've heard that they tried fixing their resource-hogging programs. I still don't like it, simply because I've had bad experiences with it (for example, OP's problem) =/

Tried? According to those tests it runs between 2 and 5 times faster than Avast or AVG, scans between 50% and 300% faster than them, boots up between 10%-300% faster than them, misses half as much malware, reports 1/2 to 1/4 of the false positives and consumes just 9Mb RAM on my 64bit system (360 version).

I think they've done a little better than try.

Time to rethink 3+ year old opinions. Others are close or a touch better in some respects, but none as comprehensive.

No false positives here on Rosetta-related programsfiles either.

---

On sidenote, I read an article from CCC about Firewalls a while ago.

Those guys were stunned that Norton Firewall created in excess of 20000 (twenty thousand!) entries in the Windows Registry after installation.

Bloatware stays bloatware IMHO, even if it works thanks to fast CPUs and Gigabytes if RAM.

---

On sidenote, I read an article from CCC about Firewalls a while ago.

Those guys were stunned that Norton Firewall created in excess of 20000 (twenty thousand!) entries in the Windows Registry after installation.

Bloatware stays bloatware IMHO, even if it works thanks to fast CPUs and Gigabytes if RAM.

I use NIS 2009, version 16.1.0.33 and have no issues of any kind with this software, nor any of its predecessors.

Have whatever opinion you want of Norton and use whatever AV software you want, but your experiences are not necessarily that of others. As long as I have no problems I'll continue to use NIS. When it doesn't measure up it will go into file 13.

On sidenote, I read an article from CCC about Firewalls a while ago.

Those guys were stunned that Norton Firewall created in excess of 20000 (twenty thousand!) entries in the Windows Registry after installation.

Bloatware stays bloatware IMHO, even if it works thanks to fast CPUs and Gigabytes if RAM.

Well that can't possibly be true. The Vista registry is massively bigger than that of XP and on my Vista64 machine with N360, containing firewall, AV, antispam, privacy controls, parental controls, HIPs and all Norton utilities there are only 3500 including all duplications.

I have no idea how many entries a normal registry has, but it must be in the hundreds of thousands.

Amazing the amount of fabrication that goes on to perpetuate tired old fallacies. Your loss.

---

On sidenote, I read an article from CCC about Firewalls a while ago.

Those guys were stunned that Norton Firewall created in excess of 20000 (twenty thousand!) entries in the Windows Registry after installation.

Bloatware stays bloatware IMHO, even if it works thanks to fast CPUs and Gigabytes if RAM.

Well that can't possibly be true. The Vista registry is massively bigger than that of XP and on my Vista64 machine with N360, containing firewall, AV, antispam, privacy controls, parental controls, HIPs and all Norton utilities there are only 3500 including all duplications.

I have no idea how many entries a normal registry has, but it must be in the hundreds of thousands.

Amazing the amount of fabrication that goes on to perpetuate tired old fallacies. Your loss.

I don't see why someone would make-up stuff... when its usually done in good heart to show what software is better... Same way hardware is compared. I seriously find Norton way too "huge" to my likings.
Which is why I just use Avast! Pro (cracked) and use common sense when I browse around the net.

And regarding the registry comment, "FalconFly" said that norton alone added 20000 registry entries. Not that the whole registry was made up of 20000 entries.
I'm not going to pay for that. lol

But still... Linux beats all. It doesn't even need security software. But I can't use it, cuz I find Windows a bit easier to work with at work.

---

Norton Internet Security 2009 has started to detect, via it's Sonar advanced detection system,certain Rosetta work units as 'High Security Risks' and is automatically deleting them.
Is this a Norton or Rosetta problem?

Running XP fully up to date.

Same here on XP with NIS 2009. Click on "More Details" in the Quarantine and you have the option to "Restore Risk". I tried doing that and it seemed the file was already back in place in the right directory anyway. Restoring the risk sets up an automatic exclusion to prevent it getting quarantined again.

Report it to Symantec using that More Details link in NIS - sounds like a False Positive they ought to know about.

Also, for what it's worth, the claim that Norton Firewall adds 20,000 registry entries is a straight lie. On my machine under XP with NIS 2009 the total for everything mentioning Symantec or Norton is 500 entries. Anyone claiming 20,000 has to be scaremongering - a lot of it about. Lots of people like to do that who've never even used Norton or did so several years ago.

It's all down to it being a pay product. AVG was great until people had to pay for it. Now it's slated. Avast was always ridiculed next to AVG when they were both free. Now it's brilliant. Until it becomes a pay product as well and people will say they never liked it.

I don't see why someone would make-up stuff... when its usually done in good heart to show what software is better... Same way hardware is compared. I seriously find Norton way too "huge" to my likings.
Which is why I just use Avast! Pro (cracked) and use common sense when I browse around the net.

And regarding the registry comment, "FalconFly" said that Norton alone added 20000 registry entries. Not that the whole registry was made up of 20000 entries. I'm not going to pay for that. lol

Cracked? Seems like you won't pay for anything.

Norton Firewall can't add 20,000 registry entries when bigger versions only total 500-3500 entries depending on OS. It's nonsensical.

The DEC-08 av-comparatives annual summary states "Symantec (NAV) improved considerably even further in 2008 (esp with the new 2009 version), reaching ADVANCED+ awards in both detection rate tests. The false alarm rates are low and the proactive detection rates are now also higher than in the past due to its new improved heuristics. The on-demand scan speed is among the fastest, but the biggest improvement is the impact on system resources: Symantec runs now quite light on the system and has no big impact on system performance."

I find that wholly accurate and I say that having set up Comodo and AVG on machines recently. There's also no need to use separate, potentially conflicting AV, HIPS, Phishing, Malware, Rootkit detection etc. Very smooth.

---

I find that wholly accurate and I say that having set up Comodo and AVG on machines recently. There's also no need to use separate, potentially conflicting AV, HIPS, Phishing, Malware, Rootkit detection etc. Very smooth.

Word is that for rootkit problems MS's Windows Defender is the ultimate. Maximum pc did a test a while back and could not get a rootkit virus to load onto a machien with Defender also loaded without being detected and blocked. Other reviewers have come up with the same results. I run it on all of my pc's. As for AV software, I find people run what they like at the moment. Norton/Symantec WAS troublesome in the past, as was McAfee. If you had problems with them in the past would you ever use them again? For me not until many, many people agreed that it was worth it. Me I use free stuff, Avast right now, for all my machines except one. My wifes desktop, and her laptop, are always loaded with spyware etc so I purchased NOD32 for her. It was on sale and I only got one copy so her desktop gets it first. The laptop has the free Avast on it right now, desktop does too but this weekend I will change the desktop. I used to run AVG but it started deciding Boinc units were bad and gave me other issues too. I contacted their tech support and they decided that since I have so many pc's running, currently 16, I MUST be a business and they would not help me!!! It will be a cold day in He!! before I run their software again!

---

Word is that for rootkit problems MS's Windows Defender is the ultimate. Maximum pc did a test a while back and could not get a rootkit virus to load onto a machine with Defender also loaded without being detected and blocked. Other reviewers have come up with the same results. I run it on all of my pc's.

I used to like it too and used it even though Norton says it's redundant, but when I moved to Vista I found it blocked BOINC altogether with UAC enabled and Boinc had to be allowed to run after hitting the desktop. Fine for me, but not for the other machines I've set it up on. I could find no way of setting up an exception either. I believe this has been solved since Boinc runs as a service now. It's also very heavy on resources when it scans, bringing machines to a near halt.

As for AV software, I find people run what they like at the moment. Norton/Symantec WAS troublesome in the past, as was McAfee. If you had problems with them in the past would you ever use them again? For me not until many, many people agreed that it was worth it.

It's a personal preference thing, but I never trusted the freebies, couldn't understand Bullguard and found Kaspersky way more demanding than anything claimed for Norton at its worst. Norton utilities are also far better than alternatives (except for Ghost v Acronis). Nothing's put me off it yet.

Me I use free stuff, Avast right now, for all my machines except one. My wifes desktop, and her laptop, are always loaded with spyware etc so I purchased NOD32 for her. It was on sale and I only got one copy so her desktop gets it first. The laptop has the free Avast on it right now, desktop does too but this weekend I will change the desktop. I used to run AVG but it started deciding Boinc units were bad and gave me other issues too. I contacted their tech support and they decided that since I have so many pc's running, currently 16, I MUST be a business and they would not help me!!! It will be a cold day in He!! before I run their software again!

I used to like Ewido but that's withdrawnlumped with AVG now and I feel isn't what it was. For free software I'm recommending Comodo Internet Security. No idea what the AV is like to be honest, but the Firewall element is one of the best there is and it's a complete package that handles everything, so no-one has to update several utilities with all the attendant potential conflicts. A bit talkative but still manageable for the uninitiated.

---