Vista - Unable to install Norton Antivirus 2009 15 days trial on Window Vista

I had been trying to install Norton AntiVirus 2009 15 days trial.
When i click on the installation file, the installation will start.
The status of the installation will only remain at "Intializing".
Approximately 5 seconds later, the installation will stop, no prompt message appear.
Same scenario appears no matter how many times i tried to install.

My supervisor is asking me to solve this problem.
I need some help here
Million thanks

holyxian wrote:
Have you turned off UAC? If not, it is normally not necessary to run an
antivirus program installation as administrator; just to respond to the UAC
prompt. And normally if a program needs to be run as administrator it will
fail with an error stating that you don't have permission to write to [x]
directory. If you have UAC turned off, try turning it on.

Another (and the most common) reason an antivirus will fail is that the
computer is already infected with viruses and/or malware. To that end, make
sure the machine is absolutely clean.

http://www.elephantboycomputers.com/...moving_Malware

As an aside, Norton AV is one of the worst products you could possibly
choose. Perhaps only McAfee is worse but it would be a toss-up. A better
choice would be NOD32 (commercial, since you are in a corporate setting).

If the computer is 100% virus/malware-free and you haven't turned off UAC
and you are determined to install Norton (not recommended), then contact
Symantec tech support.

http://www.symantec.com/techsupp/index.html - Symantec tech support
http://live-symantec.custhelp.com/cg...duser/live.php
- Symantec Live Chat
symantec.customerservice.general - Symantec newsgroup
http://community.norton.com/norton/ - Norton forum

Malke
--
MS-MVP
Elephant Boy Computers - Don't Panic!
http://www.elephantboycomputers.com/#FAQ

Actually this is not true.



Norton is sleeker and has a smaller footprint with the newer versions. I use NOD32 4, but I have to give credit where credit is due-

There are four Certified Lab bodies,

ICSA Labs
WestCoast Labs
Virus Bulletin (VB100)
AV-Comparatives

Of these the VB100 and AV-Comparatives are top, though AV-Comparatives is the most exhaustive of these. It is the most demanding, and as such the best source.

NOD32 has been certified Advanced++ (3 star Certification) in both Hueristic and On-Demand testing [Nov 2008/Feb 2009], Was the best in 2006, 2007, and took a close second to Avira in 2008.

Avira, no longer the top, has fallen to 2-star certification in the feb 2009 testing.

The 3-star Certified (Advanced ++) Antivirus/Antimalware products as of Feb 2009 are:

Symantec's Norton
Eset NOD32
Kaspersky
Mcafee (with Artemis)

The worst is reserved for Trend Micro/Vipre/CyberDefender/AVG/Authentium/Norman/Kingsoft/Sophos/Microsoft Onecare/,etc.

"rive0108" <guest@xxxxxx-email.com> wrote in message
news:cb545e9100a9f777579e6b338c3abc81@xxxxxx-gateway.com...I agree. I have NIS 2009, and it is lean and mean. It now only uses
one service and 3 processes, with total memory usage of about 8MB.
There are no more startup and shutdown delays. In fact, in both XP
and Vista, NIS is the first item in the system tray and appears almost
instantly when the desktop loads. Norton got a deserved bad rap
with the 2005-2007 editions. It got better with the 2008 edition, and
with the 2009 edition, they finally got it right.

"rive0108" <guest@xxxxxx-email.com> skrev i meddelelsen
news:cb545e9100a9f777579e6b338c3abc81@xxxxxx-gateway.com...
The question is, do they work outside the test-lab.
Ex, Mcafee is a real virus. Once you installed it you are lost.

Also did you see this link: NOD32 is one of the lowest ranked.
Most Effective Antivirus Tools Against New Malware Binaries.
http://mtc.sri.com/live_data/av_rankings/

/Jesper

All antivirus binary analysis results are provided via www.virustotal.com.
http://mtc.sri.com/live_data/av_rankings/

"The antivirus programs used by VirusTotal have limited disassembling power, and VirusTotal does not execute the files for more comprehensive analyses.
Antiviruses used may not provide 100% accurate results"

Since VirusTotal is a public service, malicious programmers can submit samples of their work to VirusTotal for analysis, and determine how to bypass detection methods of new threats through trial and error
__________________

Its funny that trend Micro seems to score second Highest, when It has the worst Malware detection rate, and Sophos scores the top slot when It is by far the worst at malware detection. (both of these programs have unacceptably high false positve detection rates, theat can result in program/Windows instability.
I think these are like most "uncertified" lab tests, or "editor's reviews, Amaturish, unprofessional tests that fail to meet the testings standards, and have probably been paid by the vendors to promote what are clearly subpar products.

http://www.pcworld.com/reviews/produ..._pro_2009.html

“Trend Micro Internet Security Pro 2009 Review
Jan 22, 2009 by Erik Larkin, PC World
Trend Micro's suite fails at the most basic task of detecting and blocking malicious software. Not recommended.

Trend Micro Internet Security Pro 2009 ($70 for three users as of 12/24/08 ) fails badly at any security suite's most important task: Identifying malware before it can attack your PC. In tests for "Paying for Protection," our 2009 roundup of nine security suites, Trend Micro's newest offering didn't just come in last place in that crucial category--its dismal 69.3 percent detection rate was a full 20 percentage points behind the next worst competitor. In AV-Test.org's tests, which put each suite up against a huge array of bots, password stealers, and other malware, top performers tagged about 99 percent of the 654,914 samples--but Trend Micro's package let three out of every ten pieces of malicious software go by untouched. That just doesn't cut it for security software.
Trend Micro likewise fell flat in heuristic tests using two-week-old signature files to simulate dealing with unknown threats, and at catching annoying adware. It was dead last in both categories.
The company says that it emphasizes proactive protection that attempts to block threats before they can try installing malware (and before the suite would have to recognize it). Trend Micro uses its own Web crawlers, download tests, and user reports to maintain a database of malicious Web sites, and will block those sites from loading on your PC. It's a valid approach--one that could well supplement scanning for malware on your PC--but it can't yet replace that core detection task.
Trend Micro's package did shine when tasked with cleaning up an existing infection. It removed all the files from nine out of ten malware infections, a performance that only BitDefender matched. It was almost as good in dealing with Registry changes, placing second in that test.
The suite offers a few interesting features, such as a scan for missing Windows patches that assigns a risk level for each one. You'll also get a useful Wi-Fi advisor button in a browser toolbar that can warn you if your wireless network lacks encryption--a smart tool placed in a good location.
Trend Micro also did well with its user interface, and clearly took time to provide good descriptions for features and options. Right away we noticed the use of plain English throughout the program.
But the company went too far with its desire to simplify, as we saw no pop-ups or warnings when it blocked our attempted Zango-adware download. We had to dig into the program logs to find out what was going on. It's good to help people make informed decisions to protect their computer, but it's also important to at least give users an idea that something we just tried to do was potentially harmful. Without an alert, a user might think that their browser simply had a problem, and they might then try installing the dangerous software through another browser--or even worse, on another PC. You can change the default setting to display warnings when your PC encounters viruses or spyware, but you shouldn't have to.
Trend Micro's suite has some good points, but there's no getting around the fact that Internet Security Pro 2009 fails at detecting malicious software, and therefore fails as a security program. We cannot recommend buying it.”

Computer magazines and ezine Antivirus Testing and Recommendations (i.e., Editor's Pick Awards)

by Andrew J. Lee
AVIEN Founding Member
http://www.avien.net

It is indisputable that any magazine can test and compare the usability, the interface, the update method, the system performance impact, the "user friendliness" and the features of respective products, and, on that basis, many magazines have conducted good and fair reviews of the anti-virus software included.

However, on the basis of their stated methodology for testing the virus detection functionality of the scanners, they often have not. The idea that a magazine will be able to test any virus scanner with their own "quarantined" virus collection is at best foolish and at worst dangerous.

Let me put it simply. When it comes to Scanner testing such magazines usually do not know what they are doing. This is proved by telling us how their test was conducted. It is simply wrong to assume that they can test a scanner just by seeing if it detects the viruses that they have. If it detects them they have proved nothing, except that there are some files they suspect of being viruses that it detects, you cannot extrapolate any further conclusion. If it does not detect, they have no way of telling why.

This is because they don't know whether their samples are viable* either fully or in part, nor whether the samples they have are mutations or variants (i.e. someone or something has made changes to it). The major criticisms that I have of such methodologies are these:

1. They do not define and publish the sample set used - listing by family, variant and type.
2. They have not tested the ability to replicate, (the definition of a virus), of each member of that sample set.
3. They do not publish the methodology of testing, which must be consistent for each product, i.e. how they set it up, were the files tested against in their natural state (as they would appear in the wild) etc.
4. They do not state whether they have distinguished viruses from Trojans or other non viral malware.
5. They often state disinfection or healing as a benefit, when it is far from agreed that it is of any benefit.
6. They often do not state the update or engine level of each product, nor the platforms on which they tested.

Therefore such tests have proved nothing, and are of little value in making a purchasing judgement.


For reliable results check the tests done by respected independent bodies in the field, you will often see that their testing contradicts such arbitrary magazine test results. See these links for some real tests :

http://www.av-test.org/index.php3?lang=en
http://www.virusbtn.com/100
http://agn-www.informatik.uni-hamburg.de/vtc/
ftp://agn-www.informatik.uni-hamburg.de/pub/texts/tests/pc-av/2001-07/0xecsum.txt
http://www.uta.fi/laitokset/virus/
http://www.check-mark.com/cgi-bin/redirect.pl
http://www.icsalabs.com/html/communities/antivirus/certifiedproducts.shtml

Real world anti-virus scanner testing is carried out using thousands of verified viruses under strictly controlled conditions. They are also carried out, at least the recognized tests, by experts in the field, who understand not only the implications of the results, but who are able to correctly interpret the results. Any tests a computer magazine have conducted in the manner described earlier are immediately invalidated by the non scientific method.

*Viable here means able to replicate and infect other files.

Read more...
Source: http://www.claymania.com/scannertest.html

Virustotal.com Drawbacks (and why Sophos and Trend, etc are able to acheive high scores in detection, when certified Labs show their detection rates so dismal. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virus_total

• Since VirusTotal is a public service, malicious programmers can submit samples of their work to VirusTotal for analysis, and determine how to bypass detection methods of new threats through trial and error.[4]

• VirusTotal is limited in that it can only scan files up to 10 megabytes in size submitted via its web interface, or 20 megabytes via its e-mail interface.

• Due to the nature of the service, files must be scanned on-demand, causing a backlog to build up at peak times. The website displays detailed graphs of server traffic, and archives these.

• The antivirus programs used by VirusTotal have limited disassembling power, and VirusTotal does not execute the files for more comprehensive analyses.

• Antiviruses used may not provide 100% accurate results.

"rive0108" <guest@xxxxxx-email.com> skrev i meddelelsen
news:348e3fd89154cc005efd1e5aba34b79c@xxxxxx-gateway.com...Its just so boring and pointless to read about all these AV reviews and 3
star certification reports.
Do they give me any good security advice, NO, they just give me a feeling of
wasted time and mony.
AV will always be the weakest link in your defense layer strategy.
Also you link to WestCoast Labs and Virus Bulletin (VB100) as a trusted and
independent sources, they are not.
They sell fear driven security subscriptions and services, so nothing new
there.

/Jesper

Well that is a matter of opinion. Virus Bulletin and AV-Comparatives are the best source. If a product fails to recieve a VB100, then it is truly a poor program (i,e, Trend Micro)
Advanced ++ certification is what I look for when purchasing. Hueristic detection is the most important as far as I am concerned, and a program's ability to prevent disabling by polymorphic malware threats, prevent rootkits, etc.

Use what you want, after all it is your system, your data, and ultimately your identity and accounts, and banking/credit cards.

Ill stick with NOD32 4.