212eta Posted October 16, 2014 Share Posted October 16, 2014 AV-Comparatives 'File Detection' Test (September 2014) PDF Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dMog Posted October 16, 2014 Share Posted October 16, 2014 and always missing is norton products...leaving one to wonder if the product is flawed or as norton claims... the testing is flawed??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steven36 Posted October 16, 2014 Share Posted October 16, 2014 and always missing is norton products...leaving one to wonder if the product is flawed or as norton claims... the testing is flawed???Or is it the other way around? Symantec Norton declined to participate in the File Detection Test, every since 2012.In order to ensure that our test results give a complete and accurate picture of a product’s capabilities, AV-Comparatives has strict rules about which tests every product must take part in, and which tests are optional. This is to ensure that the aggregated results best reflect the actual protection the tested products provide to their customers.As Symantec Norton declined to participate in the File Detection Test, we will unfortunately not be able to provide our readers with any test results for Symantec Norton in 2012. Symantec Norton have the option of officially returning to the tests, but only in accordance with the standard conditions, namely that results of all compulsory tests will be published.Apparently, the "strict" rules are waived in cases where a private third-party is offering money to do selective testing of a non-participating product; and I guess AV-Comparatives feels that customers won't be too badly misled about a product's "actual protection" if the "aggregated results" of several required tests are missing when the limited-scope testing is bought and paid for. It doesn't appear to me that AV-Comparatives is hewing to its commitment to readers to provide "a complete and accurate picture of a product’s capabilities" in the case of Norton, where it seems to be far too willing to disregard its own guidelines and requirements for product inclusion in selected tests. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Knightmare Posted October 17, 2014 Share Posted October 17, 2014 McAfee? Really? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oliverjia Posted October 18, 2014 Share Posted October 18, 2014 McAfee? Really?Look at the false positives. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HJSC Posted October 18, 2014 Share Posted October 18, 2014 Baidu tied with Kaspersky and better detection than BitDefender? :sThe world really turns around, doesn't it? :P Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlienForce1 Posted October 18, 2014 Share Posted October 18, 2014 Baidu tied with Kaspersky and better detection than BitDefender? :sThe world really turns around, doesn't it? :P :unsure: Look at the false positives. :P Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HJSC Posted October 18, 2014 Share Posted October 18, 2014 :unsure: Look at the false positives. :P Bronze medal :lol: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlienForce1 Posted October 19, 2014 Share Posted October 19, 2014 Really bad results for Avast ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarkSlayer Posted October 19, 2014 Share Posted October 19, 2014 I would like to see Webroot SecureAnywhere in malwaredetection tests and in malware removal tests again... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steven36 Posted October 19, 2014 Share Posted October 19, 2014 Really bad results for Avast ! Really like the test from Dennis Technology Labs says Windows Updates vs. Web Threats says as long as you keep windows updated with all updates Updating Windows improves system security by over 90 per cent Adding Microsoft Security Essentials increased the protection level to 99 per cent.Windows users who update regularly achieve much the same security regardless of which anti-malware software they choose. Systems running anti-malware products that scored very well in our previous tests, without the benefit of recent Windows updates, experienced minimal further advantage once these were applied. However,Windows updates added considerable extra protection when weaker anti-malware products were installed. So unless your lazy and don't update windows or cant afford to update from XP were you cant get windows updates it don't matter with you use your no more protected really. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dMog Posted October 19, 2014 Share Posted October 19, 2014 if norton products are so bad why is not lot of people with totally broken down computers because of infections Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
speedpedal Posted October 19, 2014 Share Posted October 19, 2014 I'm Amazed at the low score of false positives that Avast gives. Maybe they will take notice and review their software - Remember the cry wolf story! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steven36 Posted October 20, 2014 Share Posted October 20, 2014 I'm Amazed at the low score of false positives that Avast gives. Maybe they will take notice and review their software - Remember the cry wolf story!If you want really low false positives use Eset thats what I'm using again now. I used Avast before for a very long time the free version I never got infected once using it . And It does got a lot false positives. But it uses very little cpu .if norton products are so bad why is not lot of people with totally broken down computers because of infectionsMost must do all there windows updates and are already 90% secure . :lol: Ive not installed there products since the early 2000s so I wouldn't know ..Symantec have a shady past for making scareware . Most people if it were not for giveaways and cracks on warez boards would be using what ever was free anyways . Most never spend there hard earned money on such. If you look at the Worldwide Antivirus Vendor Market Share .1st place goes to Microsoft2nd place goes to Avast3rd place goes to AVGMost people install what is free and its always been like that . Even back when windows update didn't protect you so well most were installing AVG Free and being exposed to virus .The few people who visit message boards are a fortunate breed that have many alternatives. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BALTAGY Posted October 20, 2014 Share Posted October 20, 2014 I don't like these tests you will see strange results at the end, for me i like to test new viruses daily check this sitehttp://malwaretips.com/forums/virus-exchange.104/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HomeArmy Posted October 20, 2014 Share Posted October 20, 2014 Proactive Security Challenge 64Project examines security software for Windows OS that implement application-based security model – i.e. most of the products called Internet security suites, personal firewalls, HIPS, behavior blockers, and similar products on the market. A product must meet some fixed criteria in order to be included in this project. The list of products suitable for this project that we are aware of is available on the product list page.The goal of this project is to evaluate various abilities of security products to protect the user's data and the operating system based on the application behavior control and similar features. A product that succeeds in Proactive Security Challenge 64 is able to block well known techniques used by malware to steal or corrupt the user's identity or data, to infect and persist in the system, to participate in botnets, and to circumvent the protection implemented by the security product itself.http://www.matousec.com/projects/proactive-security-challenge-64/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nastrahl Posted October 20, 2014 Share Posted October 20, 2014 Proactive Security Challenge 64Project examines security software for Windows OS that implement application-based security model – i.e. most of the products called Internet security suites, personal firewalls, HIPS, behavior blockers, and similar products on the market. A product must meet some fixed criteria in order to be included in this project. The list of products suitable for this project that we are aware of is available on the product list page.The goal of this project is to evaluate various abilities of security products to protect the user's data and the operating system based on the application behavior control and similar features. A product that succeeds in Proactive Security Challenge 64 is able to block well known techniques used by malware to steal or corrupt the user's identity or data, to infect and persist in the system, to participate in botnets, and to circumvent the protection implemented by the security product itself.http://www.matousec.com/projects/proactive-security-challenge-64/It's not the same things. Matousec test security programs about exploits that can bypass their protections, not virus/spyware/malware detection. For a better security you can use EMET too, suited for general buffer overflow protection.I wonder if it's not too overkill using all those security softwares. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
7even Posted October 21, 2014 Share Posted October 21, 2014 if norton products are so bad why is not lot of people with totally broken down computers because of infectionsDude, that's the same question I ask when someone told me about norton. I used norton internet security since 2009. A month ago I decided to give eset a try since it has positive feedback on this forum. At fist scan, eset found coin.miner trojan on my pc that norton failed to detect. Fortunately I don't use/have bitcoin, but imagine if I do. Norton's not really a bad product, it just average. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ashish Posted October 21, 2014 Share Posted October 21, 2014 if norton products are so bad why is not lot of people with totally broken down computers because of infectionsDude, that's the same question I ask when someone told me about norton. I used norton internet security since 2009. A month ago I decided to give eset a try since it has positive feedback on this forum. At fist scan, eset found coin.miner trojan on my pc that norton failed to detect. Fortunately I don't use/have bitcoin, but imagine if I do. Norton's not really a bad product, it just average.coin miner trojan will suck up your system resources to harvest, irrespective of you having bitcoin or not Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.