counterstrike source trojan horse virus question!

Solution 1 (Will result in future problems but will solve this): Allow it, it is most likely the connection across the servers.

Solution 2 (Will help your computer, and rid you of future frustration): Uninstall Norton completely and go with another, far more reliable Antivirus like AVG or Avast.

norton false positive, Norton is wrong in this case.

http://forums.steampowered.com/forums/showthread.php?t=575256

Solution 2 (Will help your computer, and rid you of future frustration): Uninstall Norton completely and go with another, far more reliable Antivirus like AVG or Avast.

Judza

QFT

Norton is crap and takes up way too much system resources, plus costs too much.

does anyone think that this problem will be fixed on it own?

Viruses rarely remove themselves on their own :P

I would suggest running the Norton anti-virus scan, but if it was me I would just uninstall Norton, pick up AVG (free anti-virus program) and a good firewall.

^I'd like to know where you pulled those numbers of there being more false positives with other AV over Norton.

As far as I've experienced...which is enough for me, Norton was a system hog, and failed to not only give me adequate and proper AV protection but it failed to completely eliminate 2 trojans within my computer...namely the W32.sillyDC that infects removable drives. It detected them...but said something along the lines of "Norton cannot remove this". It also took far too much system resources for this detector to remain active within the computer (all of the symantec and Norton utilities combined adds up to over 30MB of Ram alone).

I also received a similar error to what the OP is saying he received when I used to play on Counter-Strike servers. I also made sure I put it at "Exclude this in future" and it kept prompting me to "Allow" the connection to take place, even when I said "Never prompt again...always allow".

Not only that, but I also paid for premium service back in the day (waste of money now that I look back on it), so I expected a premium product. When the subscription ran out...every 30 seconds a prompt would come up saying that my "Subscription had expired, please renew", even when I said "Don't prompt me further". This made working on the computer a real pain because you could not do anything but be interuppted with the constant bagering that I needed to PAY for this service, when I didn't wish to. So all I got was headaches...

You can read all you about other gripes on Amazon, and Wikipedia, and many other PC sites that speak of Norton's flaws. But that was just my experience above. I too had been using Norton products from back before 2000, so there was certainly a trust issue, and I didn't wish to uninstall it since I too had had the products for quite a while.

I then uninstalled it completely (took a bit of doing, it's a real stubborn product to remove), and installed AVG antivirus. Immediately it detected the trojans I spoke of above and removed them. It also does not leave a massive footprint in my memory when it runs in the background...nor does it give me grief when I connect up to any servers or does it prompt me every 30 seconds to update.

Also one last thing Mam00th...before you start saying that I am but one person who has had a bad experience...for your perusal...

AVG Anti Virus Article on Wikipedia

Norton Anti Virus Article on Wikipedia

I'd like to point out that AVG has apparently 40 million users whilst Norton has 100 million. The numbers do not justify your opinion of quality of product, and I would also read well about the criticisms section of Norton's page.

To the OP...heed my advice...

1. Install the AVG free edition on your computer or Avast on your computer...

2. Then use the Norton removal tool and remove Norton completely from your computer

3. Use a registry cleaner like "Ccleaner" and remove all traces of symantec, liveupdate, and nortonAV from your computer.

4. Enjoy your gaming free from being bogged down with Norton on your computer

Sorry for the wall of text...but I'm just stating the honest facts here.

First of all, wikipedia is not a reliable source of information, although sometime it is, it isn't a valid source for a research.

Second of all, look in www.av-comparatives.org, this is where I got my numbers for the false positives but just for you to know this is the one of the newer version, don't know about before 2000.

For Norton being a system hog, 30 MB of ram is nothing, especially that when you need that extra 30MB, its gonna be transfered to your virtual memory execpt for about 5 MB. AVG is using more of your cpu especially on startup (making you computer boot twice as slow then norton(saw that on www.clubic.com (french website))).

I know that Avast! is a pretty strong AV, but I hate when people say that AVG is better then norton, AVG offers about no protection to new threat and a standard protection against olders while norton is a pretty solid AV even against new threat. Still its not NOD32 but its pretty good

Oh and for the auto promp, in the newer version, Norton just update by himself.

Oh and btw, norton isnt slowing your fps rate, gaming is more then 75% about your GPU which norton doesn't have a big impact on

Edit: The biggest downside of symantec is their **** costumer support which is like most company nowaday is located in india

^I wasn't having an FPS issue in game as such...I was having an issue with constant bagering with needing to pay for more updates when I didn't wish to.

There were far too many problems with Norton, slow startup (tried it with a stop watch, AVG loads it ~37 seconds faster),

Occasional updates (Norton updates about once to twice a week max, AVG is usually promptly within the same day of release of new viruses, therefore usually everyday),

I don't get badgered to buy premium service (this isn't telemarketing, if I don't want it, I don't have to be pressured into it),

It doesn't leave a footprint in my memory (Norton itself takes about 8mb which in itself is reasonable...but all other symantec processes add up, AVG leaves a small footprint of 1MB max, which is good enough for reliable and prompt virus protection...if I wanted premium...I'd buy it) and now with AVG, I don't have those problems.

In my estimation, personal experience speaks louder than what other sites pout. The thing is that my personal experiences are not one of a kind. That means the system itself is not reliable if many people speak of the same issue.

I will admit that AVG is not as good as Nod32 (friend has it, seems reliable)...but I don't need to pay for AVG, it's simple to load up and scan with, and it gives me adequate protection, far more than Norton ever gave me in the scanning for viruses. But to top it off, Norton's updates were not free, but I still did not get what as reliable service as I have received with a free AV like AVG.

Avast is also quite good as well (got that on my other computer), but I turned to AVG first because of word of mouth. Since then, I haven't regretted it. The only thing I regret is that a company like Norton had me in for so long. In the beginning it was good, then it went downhill and in my eyes is far behind in the quality AV race (not nearly as much as McAffe).

I would also like to mention...that of those approximate 100 million using Norton, a lot of those are people who have the software preinstalled when they buy their computers. After the trial ends (I think 60 days for those computers), they are pressured to pay for the service, and most likely, majority do so because of ignorance.

PS. I know wikipedia isn't used for research, University told me that long ago, but it is accessible, and as long as any recent vandlisms issues have been solved, and references have been placed within it (pages that don't have adequate sources mention that the information is possibly invalid), it is reliable. But this isn't research now, this is opinions and information about various AV, not a thesis on the topic. If that were the case, then all public forums, all review sites would have subjective information for the thesis, and you don't look at that. But this is the very core of the discussion, opinions and help with Antivirus. I also ain't gonna be searching and linking all the forum pages I've managed to find with discussions much like this one. However, they are out there...here's a small one...392 reviews on the product:

AVG Free Reviews

My recommendation is AVG, and I've used my opinions as well as a little accessible information about the services that they provide. Links to other sites with similar info is provided in the article if you wish to browse them.

I would also like to ask that if any other people on here have had gripes with Norton, or feel that Norton failed them as an antivirus in the past, they may come into this topic and post what they would choose in place of it. The OP needs to know that they are getting screwed over, and perhaps a few more people will help the OP realise that it is a common Norton false positive, and that there are far better AV out there, far easier on the system than Norton ever was.

Norton itself takes about 8mb which in itself is reasonableJudza

8mb is reasonable if you have less then 512mb of memory I must admit, but 1gb of RAM is currently the lowest you should go if you plan doing anythingmore then simply browsing the web while listening to music.

As for personnal experience agaisnt number froma well reknown and independant website, I'd take on the number anytimes. Your personnal experience is too much influenced by your feeling and by the condition of your computer at the very moment, those company who get those number are running those test under uniform condition, with the same data everytime, unlike when you do it on your own.

As far as I remember, I got a message saying my virus protection had been updated today and another one yesterday, but this feature of autodownload, I must admit, is new in the 2007 version. And all the number Im refering are from the latest version, I don't know which version your using but I must admit as well that I've not always been happy with Norton, but the 2007 version seems pretty solid, never had problem with it except when I installed it on my mother's computer and they give me an unvalid key.

As for Norton rushing you to pay, this is plain thruth. It is annoying when you have to do so, but as numbers prove it, it is safer then AVG agaisnt new threat, and a bit better agaisnt older.

The scan time is longer with AVG, those are also facts, but this doesnt really matter since most of the people program their scan to run during night (at least I do)

As for you wikipedia article on AVG, it is like said written too much like and advertisement and many of his sources aren't what you could call something good. Not trying to discredit wikipedia at all, but this article isn't that good.

[QUOTE="Judza"] Norton itself takes about 8mb which in itself is reasonableMam00th

8mb is reasonable if you have less then 512mb of memory I must admit, but 1gb of RAM is currently the lowest you should go if you plan doing anythingmore then simply browsing the web while listening to music.

As for personnal experience agaisnt number froma well reknown and independant website, I'd take on the number anytimes. Your personnal experience is too much influenced by your feeling and by the condition of your computer at the very moment, those company who get those number are running those test under uniform condition, with the same data everytime, unlike when you do it on your own.

As far as I remember, I got a message saying my virus protection had been updated today and another one yesterday, but this feature of autodownload, I must admit, is new in the 2007 version. And all the number Im refering are from the latest version, I don't know which version your using but I must admit as well that I've not always been happy with Norton, but the 2007 version seems pretty solid, never had problem with it except when I installed it on my mother's computer and they give me an unvalid key.

As for Norton rushing you to pay, this is plain thruth. It is annoying when you have to do so, but as numbers prove it, it is safer then AVG agaisnt new threat, and a bit better agaisnt older.

The scan time is longer with AVG, those are also facts, but this doesnt really matter since most of the people program their scan to run during night (at least I do)

As for you wikipedia article on AVG, it is like said written too much like and advertisement and many of his sources aren't what you could call something good. Not trying to discredit wikipedia at all, but this article isn't that good.

Granted, you're right...the objectiveness of the articles are rather vague, as it does seem like a bashing article for Norton, and an advertisment for AVG.

For my specs, I've got over a GB of ram, but the version I used was the 2006 version. I have seen some reviews that comment on the 2007 version being an improvement...however as you say, my personal experiences affect what I perceive. I'm just trying to help the OP out, since this is a case of a false positive in Norton's case, and to avoid any more major dramas (such as overwritten settings like "Never prompt in future"), I would suggest a simpler AV like AVG. You only need basic protection, and reliable protection if you are merely playing games on your computer.

If you're download Pr0n and other "controversial" material, then maybe you need a far more instinctive and far intuitive AV, but for the needs of a gamer...AVG is one of the better ones.

Out of curiosity OP, what version of Norton are you using?

I admit that most gamers are probably ok with AVG, but I was just a bit unhappy about this Norton bashing that most people do only because it is cool to do so, like Microsoft bashing or EA bashing. Anyways, while Norton is one of the AV with the fewest false positive, it may be possible that something the developper of steam made something that is considered as a virus for Norton without really being harmful. I recommend to go on both steam and symantec forum and speak of that problem.

Been a pleasure discussing with you

p.s Sorry for my english, trying to learn...

if enough people contact norton and they do something about it I think so, that could be weeks or months though.nutcrackr

Forget it, this guy is either hopelessly stupid or a troll. HellsniperX

That was pretty much my conclusion.

Norton is a ****ty piece of ****. Its unreliable, unstable, and much to intrusive. Anyone that still uses it deserves the same kinds of headaches that this idiot is getting.

From personal experience norton internet security was pretty good, buy consumed too much resources. Of all AVs I used Kaspersky was the best, but I didn't feel like paying, and got AVG free. It gets the job done very well :)'

u must see this

http://world5.monstersgame.co.uk/?ac=vid&vid=59210680