Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?
Businesses Stats Crime Security The Almighty Buck IT Your Rights Online

Norton '12 Cybercrime Numbers Lower Than Last Year's — But Just As Bad 46

Curseyoukhan writes "Norton released its annual cybercrime report on Wednesday, and the company put the 'direct costs associated with global consumer cybercrime at US $110 billion over the past twelve months.' Last year's report put the total 'at an annual price of $388 billion globally based on financial losses and time lost.' That's more than the estimated value of the global black market in marijuana, cocaine and heroin combined ($288 billion), the report said. But Norton makes no mention of the vast difference in 2011 and 2012 numbers. That's because last year's number was entirely fictitious." Something tells me that the scare-monger number-wavers aren't as embarrassed by this sort of logical deconstruction as they should be.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Norton '12 Cybercrime Numbers Lower Than Last Year's — But Just As Bad

Comments Filter:
  • Great way to get some cred in prople who don't know squat about security. Cause people who know the products know how crap your products are, and, unfortunately, THEY DONT CONTROL THE MONEY.
    • Re:Norton (Score:5, Informative)

      by craigminah ( 1885846 ) on Thursday September 06, 2012 @04:38PM (#41253269)
      While you personally don't like Norton or their products, AV Comparatives and other independent testers (e.g. CNet, PCMag, etc.) show NIS at the top in terms of detection, removal, low-system resource utilization, etc. Empirical evidence shows its very good at what it does. I've used NIS for a few years and I like the GUI, the speed, and the way it works but I didn't like the price which is why I switched to Avast but it's hard to say NIS isn't effective and efficient at what it does unless you're letting your emotions take over.
      • Empirical evidence presented by well-known rent-a-journalist websites does not trump personal experience.

        There are only 3 AV products I recommend (and i do this for a living), and NIS isn't one of them. Neither is Macafee.:

        1. Microsoft security essentials
        pros: free, does what it does with VERY little interaction, VERY low resource footprint
        cons: average(read: SHITTY) protection.

        2. Comodo Internet Security
        pros: free version available, most comprehensive system protection I know of (I install this w
        • I use a computer for a living and I have found NIS to be very good. Don't need to be a professional computer person to know if something's good or not.
      • "V Comparatives and other independent testers (e.g. CNet, PCMag, etc.) show NIS at the top in terms of detection, removal, low-system resource utilization, etc. "

        They also know which side of their bread the butter is on.

        "Norton" brand software products started going downhill the moment Peter Norton sold his interest to Symantec. I watched it happen. It got gradually but steadily worse. The last "Norton Suite" I ever used (years ago) installed so many resident programs and other JUNK that my system slowed to a crawl, and did not supply enough configurability for me to just run those that I wanted.

        I reamed every last trace of Symantec software off my hard drive,

  • Last Line (Score:5, Insightful)

    by CanHasDIY ( 1672858 ) on Thursday September 06, 2012 @04:28PM (#41253135) Homepage Journal

    Thankfully, Norton's security products are generally better than its reports.

    Yea, and their security products suck donkey balls, so what's that tell you about their reports?

    • everything you need to know.
  • by WebManWalking ( 1225366 ) on Thursday September 06, 2012 @04:32PM (#41253179)
    Norton prefers to say that they were colonically extracted.
  • Did my job (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward

    I was paid to come up with numbers for the marketing campaign. Why should I feel ashamed? I did a great job. We sold *a lot* of product with that number!

  • by Hazel Bergeron ( 2015538 ) on Thursday September 06, 2012 @04:40PM (#41253281) Journal

    ...deleted discussion of my $1 trillion idea, so I never got to put it into action.

    Norton's figures are thus way too low.

    Excluding this, though, Norton may be including the media industry association criminals who overvalue the loss of copying bits representing a Britney Spears wailing lament, or whatever the cool kids are listening to these days.

  • Has a computer security firm ever said things have gotten safer? No? Then it's safe to ignore them.
  • by the_fat_kid ( 1094399 ) on Thursday September 06, 2012 @04:48PM (#41253371)

    This years made up numbers lower than last years made up numbers.

    next years made up numbers might be even lower.

    Is that a good thing?

  • So let me get this straight. Norton are saying that the number of people reporting Norton as criminal (due to bloated and buggy virus-esque software presumably) has dropped from previous years?

    If this is true, why are they advertising this negative attention instead of just quietly improving their software?
  • That number sounds really low to me if you include people trafficking in copyrighted files. If you included that, the number would be closer to a googol (by RIAA and MPAA estimates) than a mere $110 billion.
  • by gweihir ( 88907 ) on Thursday September 06, 2012 @07:36PM (#41254979)

    When lying with statistics, you get credibility for being overly precise. "110" looks like an estimate, while "388" does not. I also think they should have managed to manufacture an increased level of damage and at the same time a decreased level for Norton customers.

    So here are my numbers:

    - 2011: $388B for all, $9.36B for Norton customers.
    - 2012: $652B for all, $8.72B for Norton customers.
    This conclusively demonstrates that Norton is the right choice. Norton did manage to improve security for all its customers, even to a higher degree than these numbers show, because more organizations finally decided to be protected by the one true choice in security services. Norton achieved this impressive feat while the general situation deteriorated, with a massive increase of loss suffered due to attacks on IT infrastructure by ever more competent criminals.

    After all, if you drop all ethics and just let the amoral beast that you are run the show, why not do it right?

    • by sarysa ( 1089739 )
      Too obvious. I think Norton got it right. We're calling them out but they showed enough restraint that any intended ploy will fly over most peoples' heads.
  • Norton is a virus (Score:3, Insightful)

    by EmperorOfCanada ( 1332175 ) on Thursday September 06, 2012 @10:46PM (#41256367)
    When family call me over to fix up a slow machine and I find Norton AV on it I walk away. I can't tell that bloated sack of crap from the malware it is trying to stop. I don't care how good it might be as all it does is pop up and pop up and demand money. How about NOD32? The last time I had my own Windows box that thing rocked. If it popped up then you had a problem that it was stopping.

    But everybody blah blahs about the death of the desktop but what I think perverted the whole thing was when companies like Dell, HP, ACER, and most of the rest changed their business model to where they sold a desktop for little or no profit in the hopes of getting commissions from sales of the trialware they put on their machines.

    Is it any surprise that people are buying Apples desktops, laptops, and iPads when the only thing apple really tries to sell you is iCloud? I am not Apple Fanboying here I think that any company that made a point of telling people that their machines were trialware free would make some serious gains in the market.

    My old policy with family was that they would send their new laptop over and I would wipe it clean put a good AV product, Open Office, and iTunes on it and send it home. That stopped when laptops cut the left shift key in half and put the \| key there. This was some cost savings thing for foreign keyboards but for me it was the straw that broken my tech support camel's back. I won't touch one of those keyboards. Plus wiping these systems is a nightmare of drivers some of which put some bloatware back.

    So for Norton to be scaremongering people into buying their crap product doesn't surprise me in the least; it just isn't their worst crime. As I said their worst crime was to be one of the biggest proponents of this trialware bloatware business model of lower end computers that has basically poisoned the PC market.
  • "Norton released its annual cybercrime report on Wednesday, and the company put the 'direct costs associated with global consumer cybercrime at US $110 billion over the past twelve months.

    And the solution is to move to Linux [] ...
  • Does anybody around here buy the basic story? That 46% of consumers are victims of cybercrime each year? And what are they defining as cybercrime? Is any crime that uses electronic means cybercrime? Nigeria scams? Fake charities? Phishing? ATM card duplication? Submission of fake bills via email?

    Lets see a definition restricted to the kind of malware that Norton is designed to prevent.

  • Why anyone feels the need to abbreviate "2012" is beyond me. Just makes the headline even less intelligible.

To write good code is a worthy challenge, and a source of civilized delight. -- stolen and paraphrased from William Safire