Queries about Norton Antivirus Corporate Edition
in [Anti-Virus]
|
From: FromTheRafters on 11 Jan 2010 18:51 "Charlie" <fat.charlie(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:lhank51pbll27ojoidb59d703k075h2ujd(a)4ax.com... [...] > Symantec products TOP all others in detection having passed 45 > out of 46 quarterly tests for the 100% detection of the well-known and > respected "In the Wild" testing award. Wow! 100% - that *is* good. (you've tipped your hand)
From: Anonymous on 11 Jan 2010 19:41 "Fart Charlie" <fart.charlie(a)yahoo.com> whimpered: >James..I noticed you snipped out the link to AV Conparatives site James pays heed to Vesselin Bontchev, who thinks Andreas Clementi isn't qualifed to test anti-malware programs (or even a used Kleenex) so he snips links to AV Conparatives tests to protect the public from misleading bullshit.
From: George Orwell on 11 Jan 2010 21:03 "FromTheRafters" <erratic(a)nomail.afraid.org> wrote in message news:higdja$bct$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... > "Charlie" <fat.charlie(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message > news:lhank51pbll27ojoidb59d703k075h2ujd(a)4ax.com... > > [...] > >> Symantec products TOP all others in detection having passed 45 >> out of 46 quarterly tests for the 100% detection of the well-known and >> respected "In the Wild" testing award. > > Wow! 100% - that *is* good. > (you've tipped your hand) Charles T Johnston has been a financially-rewarded Symantec shill for years. Thanks for the nice Usenet message... :0) Il mittente di questo messaggio|The sender address of this non corrisponde ad un utente |message is not related to a real reale ma all'indirizzo fittizio|person but to a fake address of an di un sistema anonimizzatore |anonymous system Per maggiori informazioni |For more info https://www.mixmaster.it
From: Dustin Cook on 12 Jan 2010 02:44 Charlie <fat.charlie(a)yahoo.com> wrote in news:gchik5ldq86sigo72p8koipfmfn867g7s6(a)4ax.com: > On Sat, 9 Jan 2010 22:02:44 -0500, "FromTheRafters" > <erratic(a)nomail.afraid.org> wrote: > >><fat.charlie(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message >>news:uaahk51m7gbsc30n66jr1l4kgu9lqm4u9t(a)4ax.com... >> >>Without visiting the links... >> >>> http://www.antivirusware.com/norton-antivirus/ >>> "Norton AntiVirus is the world's best-selling security program" >> >>Best selling is not a good indicator IMO. >> >>> http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2349866,00.asp >>> - PCMag 'EDITOR'S CHOICE" is Norton Internet Security 2010 - >>> "Last year Symantec pulled out all the stops to reduce Norton >>> Internet Security's impact on system performance. This year's >>> version of the suite, Norton Internet Security 2010 ($69.99 direct >>> for 3 licenses), focuses both on improving the user's experience and >>> raising overall protection. As we saw with our early look at the >>> beta of Norton Internet Security 2010, the release version succeeds >>> at both aims without sacrificing performance, securing its position >>> as our Editors' Choice." >> >>I dislike suites just as a matter of principle. >> >>> http://download.cnet.com/Norton-AntiVirus-2010/3000-2239_4-10592477.h >>> tml "In the 2010 version of its well-known antivirus program, >>> Symantec continues to build on the unexpected progress it made last >>> year. In addition to maintaining the quick load and scan times, and >>> significantly smaller system footprint, Norton 2010 includes a >>> behavioral detection engine based on both behavior and reputation" >> >>I did hear that Norton improved the scanning speed of their anti-virus >>engine. >> >>Again, speed is not a good indicator IMO. >> >>In fact, there is *always* a compromise between speed and accuracy. >> >>> http://www.howtogeek.com/reviews/norton-internet-security-2010/ <- >>> "Fast loading new interface that is light on system resources" >> >>...which is a *good* thing, but again - suites - well..they try to do >>too much for the user and usually end up being mediocre if taken all >>together. Better to opt for several best of class programs of your own >>choosing. >> >>> http://www.av-comparatives.org/index.php >>> "Gold-Rated - Top security product 2009" >> >>Well, that blurb doesn't tell me much. Guess I'll have to visit to see >>if they are basing their opinion on more than the effectiveness of the >>AV component (regardless of speed). >> >> > > Your opinions are noted however they do little to refute the facts > offered up by lab tests and reviews by respected industry and > journalistic sources, wouldn't you agree? After all who would one > researching the net for pre-sales AV data regard..your opinion or > sources like Virus Bulletin, ICSA, AV-Comparatives.org and other > similarly recognized authorities? > > As an example Virus Bulletin has awarded Norton security products > their top Gold award (Best of 2009) and they have been lab testing AV You do realize, if said product fails the test, not only can they resubmit again for testing; they get copies of the samples they missed? Just wanted you to have a more well rounded, opinion (as your sources do) of Norton. > software for 10 years now. We all have opinions...on AV matters mine > are based on TEST DATA not feelings or what someone else has told me Even if the test data is flawed? (not saying vb's is, mind you; but icsa labs does allow resubmission and testing until your product does pass.) -- .... Those are my thoughts anyways...
From: Dustin Cook on 12 Jan 2010 02:56
"FromTheRafters" <erratic(a)nomail.afraid.org> wrote in news:higdja$bct$1 @news.eternal-september.org: > "Charlie" <fat.charlie(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message > news:lhank51pbll27ojoidb59d703k075h2ujd(a)4ax.com... > > [...] > >> Symantec products TOP all others in detection having passed 45 >> out of 46 quarterly tests for the 100% detection of the well-known and >> respected "In the Wild" testing award. > > Wow! 100% - that *is* good. > (you've tipped your hand) Does VB also allow resubmission of product until you do pass as ICSA labs? -- .... Those are my thoughts anyways... |