Queries about Norton Antivirus Corporate Edition
in [Anti-Virus]
|
From: Dustin Cook on 12 Jan 2010 03:00 Anonymous <cripto(a)ecn.org> wrote in news:20100112004139.DD2A01A74C2 @www.ecn.org: > "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. > > Wasn't AV comparatives bashed a few years ago for the laughable methodology used? I didn't know anything had changed.. :) -- .... Those are my thoughts anyways...
From: Leythos on 12 Jan 2010 06:03 In article <lhank51pbll27ojoidb59d703k075h2ujd(a)4ax.com>, fat.charlie(a)yahoo.com says... > James..I noticed you snipped out the link to AV Comparatives site and > the text stating that Virus Bulletin awarded Norton security products > the Gold "Best of 2009' award. Those are NOT credible sources? Out of > the past 46 quarters that VB has been testing AV products (10+ years > now) 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. > And until last month I was a firm believer in Symantec Corporate Edition AV products, but, while having the latest and fully operational and fully updated SEPP on a machine, it was compromised by a drive-by website attack. Avira continues to block that attack and testing shows that it's protecting as well as Symantec Corp Ed AV software in all other areas. -- You can't trust your best friends, your five senses, only the little voice inside you that most civilians don't even hear -- Listen to that. Trust yourself. spam999free(a)rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)
From: Billabong on 12 Jan 2010 06:15 "Charlie" <fat.charlie(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:220kk594u9ncvkedcdiiimhrs48k5r0min(a)4ax.com... > On Sun, 10 Jan 2010 11:33:07 +0100 (CET), Nomen Nescio > <nobody(a)dizum.com> wrote: > >> >><fat.charlie(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >>> On Sun, 10 Jan 2010 02:19:21 +0100 (CET), Anonymous <cripto(a)ecn.org> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>><fat.charlie(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> http://www.antivirusware.com/norton-antivirus/ >>>> >>>>Well known "paid by the click" site, gets money from Symantec sales! >>>> >>>>> http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2349866,00.asp >>>> >>>>Gets LOTS of Symantec advertising money! >>>> >>>>> http://download.cnet.com/Norton-AntiVirus-2010/3000-2239_4-10592477.html >>>> >>>>Gets LOTS of Symantec advertising money! >>>> >>>>> http://www.howtogeek.com/reviews/norton-internet-security-2010/ >>>> >>>>Well known "paid by the click" site, gets money from Symantec sales! >>>> >>>>> http://www.av-comparatives.org/index.php >>>> >>>>Paid handsomely to "test" Symantec! >>>> >>>>> Let the FACTS speak for themselves..if YOU dare! >>>> >>>>The facts DO speak for themselves! EVERY ONE of your links makes >>>>money out of pushing Symantec! You're just shilling for other shills, >>>>dipshit! >>> >>> OK then..maybe you are right and I'm wrong. Post your sources that >>> PROVE what you CLAIM is true...dipshit. Bet you can't. >> >>The Truth Is Out There For All To See, Kunta Kinte! >> >>Go to the sites and click on the links, then breathe deeply through your >>flared nostrils and smell the bullshit, dipshit! > > Thank you for your kind and courteous Usenet post. Courtesy is contagious. -- New message: new problems cause new solutions, and vice versa; see if it affects you? www.usenet1.hrvat.name
From: Nomen Nescio on 12 Jan 2010 02:23 <fart.charlie(a)yahoo.com> farted: > > May the best FART win. Who can compete with your flatulent jig fart pipe?
From: FromTheRafters on 12 Jan 2010 10:42
"Dustin Cook" <bughunter.dustin(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:Xns9CFE1E8979636HHI2948AJD832(a)69.16.185.247... > "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? I don't know, but I suspect that some form of "cooking" goes on. My comment above was more about the idea that 100% is not only theoretically attainable but comfirmed to have been attained - or at least asserted to have been by our local Norton shill (I guess it is in his blood). My point is that there was once a way to compare AV detection capability on a 'apples to apples' basis. The test set could be managed so that only viable samples were there. It was easy enough, non-programmatically, to ensure that a given sample was indeed a virus, and measure various AVs against this known entity. Even a group of AVs thrown against a set of such viruses would give meaningful results for comparison of the AVs used. Now, AVs are expected to cover non-replicating malware which is harder to show as being a real threat. More and more the true worth of a scanner lies in how small an aperture its accompanying modules leave for 0day activity. It isn't even about how accurate it is at detecting known threats, it's about how quickly you researchers can react to new instances and get the new definitions to the scanners. Antivirus comparative testing has become completely subjective, so all claims become suspect (especially claims of 100% accurate coverage). |