View Full Version : CNET being biased in Tests?
March 30th, 2002, 11:15 PM
I was shocked to be quite honest with CNET's reviews of Norton, McAfee, Kaspersky, and Panda's AV Sotware. To give Kaspersky a crummy 5 out of 10 is showing a bias to me. I think Norton is a very good programme as well as Panda too. However the gap in the Ratings between Norton's 8 of 10 and the Editor's Choice, and the others to be somewhat alarming? The Review is at *http://www.cnet.com/software/0-806174-8-9418573-1.html?tag=ld
Thoughts members? Regards, Peter.
March 31st, 2002, 07:35 AM
The test contains so many errors that I beleave the tester never installed the programs. ;)
"Malicious script protection": Yes of course KAV has such a feature called "script checker". *"Tech support": almost non: I always got back qualified answers from their support but as Norton was rated as 'Good' I think the tester has never tried Symantec's support: You always get 'standard answers' that mostly not really targets the problem.
And in the review more false points: no defense against malicious macros. That is totaly wrong. KAV detects of course macro based malware and there is also a heuristic macro viruses detection included. But as they test the Pro version they overlooked the best: A behaviour blocker which is only made for protection of macro viruses. No other av program includes such a technologie.
Also the speed of KAV can not be compared against NAV. Simply because KAV knows more archives, installation setups, over 120 exe-packer and crypter. So this takes longer as a program that does not unpack exe-packers and also knows less archives and setup-installation types. Also KAV scans in email databases from various email clients.
And the end questions is for me why they only tested those four programs. Why not NOD32 or PC Cillin?
March 31st, 2002, 10:09 AM
It's not just Cnet.
I recently read a review of a bunch of utilities in Smart Computing magazine. Same general outline and conclusions.
I think what it boils down to in magazine reviews is (a) advertising dollars spent by the various vendors and (b) the magazine reviewers have neither the time nor the expertise to check out all the AV programs available - they need a cute, semi-authoritative article *- quick (and let's slam foreign products so people will buy American, while we're at it - see (a) ). Pete
March 31st, 2002, 12:36 PM
I took the time to add my comments to the numerous ratings for Nortons and KAV.
Nortons may soon have a contract out on me, but I tell it like I see it. *;D
I may have to start a crusade if some of these sites like CNet and ZDNet don't start getting honest with the people. We have a right to be told the truth. They are not government. *:o
March 31st, 2002, 12:59 PM
Thank you all for the feedback, my undertanding from their site is next month will be a test of "Less famous AV Software". I just hope that they are not going to "Bash" Nod 32, Dr WEb, or PC-cillin. Mind you, the public can bend the Rules in ratings too, judging the recent Outpost FW. posting on their Forum. If this is not a case of "Leading the Witness", I don't what is. The link is *http://www.agnitum.com/forum/showthread.php?s=85bf9410b019e99d0d0ef57f089c5b2a&threadid=3268
I am sure however that this activity is alive and well in the AV Postings on CNET as well. Time will tell, regards, Peter.
March 31st, 2002, 01:34 PM
Its garbage like this that lead me to buy the Wrong AV the first time. * *Thanks to forum's like this one I was able to see through the advertising dollars and get a better, more secure product.
March 31st, 2002, 11:13 PM
I know that I'm in the minority here, but I'm using NAV. *I've been using it for several years and so far (knock on wood) it has never let me down. *NAV has caught every virus that has been sent to me via e-mail. *I can't complain, it does the job and NAV 2002 does the updating automatically. *I like that.
April 1st, 2002, 08:24 PM
Hello AMH209, I really like Norton 2002 AV myself too. I think many members here do as well, judging from a lot of positive feedback on the Forum. I think it is just that CNET did not give due consideration to Panda's and Kaspersky's excellent qualities in the way Norton did. To be honest, I really think there is more to a Quality AV Programme than the Wild List. Unpacking, Virus database, Scanning Speeds, etc. Kind regards, Peter.
vBulletin® Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2002 - 2013, Wilders Security Forums