Norton Internet Security 2010
Fast, finely tuned, and a little flawed
We took some heat after awarding last year’s version of Norton Internet Security our coveted Kick Ass award. Some of you were baffled at how Norton, a notorious resource hog and semi-effective scanner, could turn things around in such dramatic fashion. Others questioned our geek cred, while a few of you even accused us of being on the take—ouch. But the truth is, Symantec deserved every accolade it received. Could this be the dawn of a new AV dynasty in the Norton camp?

Norton lets you audit your system files and see which ones might be potentially dangerous or performance-hampering.
We’re not yet ready to anoint Norton the savior of security software, and we’ll tell you why in a moment. First, let’s focus on what NIS 2010 does right. This year’s update continues NIS’s reborn legacy as a lean and fast scanner. We remain particularly impressed with Norton Insight, which dramatically reduces system scans. The first time NIS sweeps through your system, it examines every file. Each time thereafter, the scanner skips files that have been validated by Symantec and deemed trustworthy. The result? After an initial scan time of 16 minutes, 18 seconds, NIS then scurried through our data in just four minutes, 47 seconds, finishing long before our coffee break did.
NIS thwarted most of our attempts to find a chink in its armor, knocking out spyware and batting away disreputable downloads without skipping a beat. That is, until we played dirty. We disabled NIS long enough to download a contaminated archive and then turned it back on. Norton only blocked some of the infected files inside our Pandora’s box, allowing our test bed to become infected with a fake AV scanner. It even allowed the rogue program to disable UAC.
We have a hard time picturing anyone going through the trouble we did to intentionally inflict harm, but nevertheless, our confidence is shaken.
<< Back to the Antivirus App Roundup Page
Norton Internet Security 2010

The Good
Norton Insight reduces length of future system scans by validating trustworthy files the first time.
The Bad
It couldn't effectively block the contaminated archive that we installed.
7
Comments
![]()
turbonutter
April 19, 2010 at 2:07am
So you dock it 3 points because it let something by when you downloaded an infected archive while it was shut off? You'd have to be a colossal idiot to have this scenario occur in the real world.
![]()
Spencer Taylor
June 12, 2010 at 11:45pm
What the heck MaxPC? It get's a EC last year, and MaxPC - super user's, e.g. not your average gamer or user, are able to purposely disable the program MANUALLY, and it loses 3 points? Something sounds messed up with that. Are you afraid to admit it's a good product or lose "street cred". No one is going to go to the lengths you guy's did to mess with this app. You essentially set it up to fail. I have used and or tried every major Security suite, and I consider Norton the leader, for the time being.
Also, Comcast, although they suck, offers Norton 360 v4 for FREE (7 licenses) to their customers, and 360 is rated better than 2010! No promo intended, just letting people know you can get it for FREE if you use Comcast. So, does that make it better than MSSE?
![]()
Paul_Lilly
July 09, 2010 at 4:24pm
As I explained below, the reason why we temporarily disabled Norton was so we could see if it was blocking the archive because it recognized all the malware contained inside, or just a portion of them. Once it was downloaded to the hard drive, we re-enabled Norton and executed the archive. Norton then blocked some of them, but not all of them. These are all viruses that users might stumble upon in the wild, individually.
The bottom line is, Norton didn't perform as well this year as it did last year, and from purely a protection standpiont, it got outclassed by some of its peers. And keep in mind that we also take into consideration the findings of Virus Bulletin, a major third-party AV lab, who is better equipped than we are to test for a larger sample of malware.
-Paul Lilly
![]()
Paul_Lilly
May 15, 2010 at 7:51pm
You're looking past the point. For our tests, one of the archives we downloaded contains an assortment of malware, some of which Norton recognized, and so it blocked the entire thing. The ones that Norton didn't detect could easily be distributed by themselves, and in that scenario, Norton wouldn't stop you from downloading it.
-Paul Lilly
![]()
Silver925
April 19, 2010 at 11:10am
Too bad the world is full of colossal idiots. I have to agree though. 3 points based on that seems a bit harsh. most 'protection' software tends to have problems with infections if they are able to (For whatever reason) get past it initially.
![]()
Athlonite
April 25, 2010 at 8:24am
MSE would probably have been able to stop it
Play till it breaks then learn how to fix it!
Log in to MaximumPC directly or log in using Facebook
Forgot your username or password?
Click here for help.















