Why can't Wilder's review Norton's?

[Straight Shooter]

In it's list of AV's, I've never seen NAV reviewed... Now with the advent of NAV 2004, and it's newer unpacker ability, I feel kinda "slighted" Wilders hasn't EVER reviewed NAV...

I don't know... I know Wilder's is VERY BUSY, but still, not reviewing the World's Number 1 selling AV (I don't care what the reasons are)... could be construed as a disservice to it's readers...I noticed the AV section of WIlders was updated recently, but no NAV?

That doesn't exactly look very fair to me...

[Randy_Bell]

StraightShoot, the standard reply seems to be "no time" .. but after years of asking the same question, I'm really wondering if it is lack of tme or anti-Norton prejudice? Seems to me a security site should include the market leader in a product review, no matter what the excuse offered; it's like reviewing operating systems and saying in excuse, "oh we don't have time to review Microsoft" .. strange.

I don't mean that to sound critical, but the excuse has worn thin and lost credibility with me .. seems like if there was a will, Wilders would find a way. I don't mean to offend anyone, but one reaon I don't post here much is because I'm afraid of being flamed and I fear there is a real anti-Norton bias, and NAV users aren't welcome at this site.

I mean no offense to Paul, he's a great guy, outstanding guy and security expert .. but I do feel this way, Norton users aren't especially welcome here.

Thank you for having the courage to raise the subject, I hope you don't get flamed .. I hope we don't get flamed .. when I got your IM at dslreports, I decided to post to your thread and show my support.

Good luck and again, I mean no offense to anyone here at Wilders.

Warmly, Ran

[Straight Shooter]

You've been trying for years? I didn't know that LOL.... ;D

Well, I bought NIS 2004 Pro for a mobile power laptop, as you well know...It just irritated me that EVERYWHERE I Check, I see a review for NAV 2004... and it just came out!....

BTW, I never noticed the feeling that NAV users are not welcome here at Wilders... I either missed something here, or I'm naive LOL...

[LowWaterMark]

-{ Quote: " quoting: Randy_Bell link=board=24;threadid=14471;start=0#msg91281 date=1065063654]I don't mean to offend anyone, but one reaon I don't post here much is because I'm afraid of being flamed and I fear there is a real anti-Norton bias, and NAV users aren't welcome at this site." }-

I really sorry you feel that way Randy, but in all the time I've been administering here I've never seen NAV or NAV users flamed.

Whether wilders.org reviews NAV or not, Norton users and Norton products are not bashed or put down here. If you do see such a thing, please bring it to my attention and it will be stopped.

As for the product review, the .org is managed separately and only Paul can respond to inquiries regarding that. He will be on later (once morning rolls around where he is).

[LowWaterMark]

-{ Quote: " quoting: Straight Shooter link=board=24;threadid=14471;start=0#msg91282 date=1065063981]You've been trying for years? I didn't know that LOL.... ;D " }-

Well, the Wilders Security Forums are just under 20 months old at this point, hence the News items that says: "6600+ registered members in less than 20 months!" that cycles at the top of the forum. But, Randy is certainly right that the question has been asked several times before.

[Randy_Bell]

I apologize ...... it has seemed like years .. sorry for exaggeration. LowWaterMark you are a "buddy" at DSLReports and the kinest gentlest person .. surely you know I didn't and don't have you personally in mind by my comments. I do know that the updates section seems the most open and unbiased, all security products welcome to representation and posting of updates news there.

Still I'm having a hard time buying the "lack of time" argument: that excuse has worn a little thin, imho. Wilders found time to review the other products, but not the market leading AV ?? It just doesn't make much sense, assuming prejudice isn't the underlying reason.

Well I'm glad I didn't get too flamed, and of course I do like you LowWaterMark, always have and always will, you are a true "security guru", especially a ZA/ZAP guru.

[Mr.Blaze]

:D hi randy well im here to tell it how it is lol

as a baby newbie at wilders it was in fact pauls very first words to me from his lips to my ears

Blaze you need an antviruse for a beginer i recomend nav

that was the very first security application i saved money and bought.

many here know i have to save my pennys so nav was the very best choice for a newbie like me

i been around longher now and i notice alot of the big boys play with nod

if i ever gradguate one day ill move from nav to nod

but nav has been highly recomended to me and my kin heere in the past


intermidate users usealy get directed to kav i think or whats the other avast or something i duno then advance hard core ussers get recomended nod

but its still a matter a prefrence ;D

[Pieter_Arntz]

-{ Quote: " quoting: Randy_Bell link=board=24;threadid=14471;start=0#msg91281 date=1065063654]

I mean no offense to Paul, he's a great guy, outstanding guy and security expert .. but I do feel this way, Norton users aren't especially welcome here.

" }-

Hi Randy,

I agree on the first part of that sentence, but being a Norton user myself, I never felt I wasn't welcome here. ;)

Regards,

Pieter

[solarpowered candle]

yea i recon there s more flaming between Nod and Non Noddy users than Norton or such :D
speaking as an observer of course who has not had the pleasure of using either .

It would be interesting to hear more unbiased opinions about norton

[Paul Wilders]

Gents,

Some clarification:

All of the times, security software developpers do provide us with a couple of free licenses so our guys can perform tests resulting in a review. (We've passed the stage buying licenses a long time ago...).

In this particular case the software developper refused(?) to provide licenses needed. No doubt that's their perogative - as is ours to conclude this software developper does not like their software being tested an reviewed by our .org team.

Unless they do change their attitude in this context, there will be no tests and subsequently no review.

Ran: I'm somewhat surprised: we are not in the habit of flaming - that's not our style ;)

regards.

paul

[msingle]

I don't want to get run out of town either. I love this place and the information and help that is available. So please read what I'm saying with an open mind. I'm not attacking anyone just expressing my humble opinion.

I asked this question before http://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?t=6662;start=15

and Paul's answer was:

-{ Quote: "Basicly, we (try to) cover merely the best ones - wether they get a lot of coverage elsewhere or not. " }-

but also said that time was an issue.

I've never really felt unwelcome but in all honesty believe that there is an anti-Norton bias by some people. Of course that will be denied. But if you read the posts and you read between the lines I think you can't help but see it. This is definitely a Pro NOD group overall it seems even though they say other boards are pro something else.

Some of my posts have pointed out some of these "between the lines" things that are said or not said but the meaning is clear.

I'll give 3 examples of why I feel this way.

1. The Virus Bulletin tests are taken as gospel and anyone who questions them are heretics, is the way I see what is said. Their tests are far and above any other testing organizations and tests done in PC magazines are ridiculed as are other tests.

The PC magazines got on everyone's bad side because of dissing NOD it seems and for the opposite reason Virus Bulletin are the good guys it seems because of NOD's high results.

So for example I would say something like okay Norton has won this many times on CNET, PCMag, etc. and then advertising money is the excuse or incompetent testers and NOD has a big thing on their site about the incompetence of these tests. However when PCMag said something nice it was put on their site too. The PC magazines are either incompetent or they aren't.

Likewise when I pointed out that NOD (outside of the one Linux test) has failed more recently than Norton I was told that it wasn't the award itself necessarily but I had to read all the test details to get the real story.

In other words when NOD wins the VB awards it proves its dominance and that its the world leader. When Norton wins the very same award it's not taken seriously. Either the award means something or it doesn't. If the award is so important, and it seems it is as much as the NOD people tout it, then Norton does just as good as NOD and NOD has failed since the last time Norton failed.

2. There's been a lot of comments about marketing hype, money, etc. when talking bad about Norton and others. Yet on this page: http://www.nod32.com/news/cnet_zdnet2.htm it says -{ Quote: "between February 2000 to February 2002, Norton AntiVirus missed a total of 1,597 viruses . . . many of them "in the wild" viruses! " }-

Now how could this be since the last time Norton lost a VB award was September 99 and one of the criteria for the award is -{ Quote: "Detect all In the Wild viruses during both on-demand and on-access scanning in Virus Bulletin's comparative tests." }-

If Norton, during that two year period, missed many in the wild viruses then the VB tests are invalid and the award means nothing. Or it means that the definition of hype is what the competition does.

3. Many times it's been repeated over and over that a layered defense is the best defense and you shouldn't have one point of failure. Yet NOD (at least version 1) had lots of single points of failure and it was said that the features other programs had (like Norton) were unnecessary. A couple examples would be outgoing scanning and scanning in zip files.

The argument goes that NOD doesn't need the excess baggage of Norton because that scanning isn't needed. Yet anyone can clearly see that waiting on NOD to scan when the zip file is opened or whatever can be disaster waiting to happen. Some people have made comments about the resident scanner not working or locking up in the past showing the potential failure of that single layer of protection.

It seems that the layered defense (scanning as deep and as much as possible in this case) idea goes out the window when it's NOD versus Norton and in fact it's held against Norton for being a resource hog (it wouldn't be the story goes if it didn't do all that unnecesary scanning).

So what's the bottom line after all that? It definitely could be a time problem. But I believe that many here believe that NOD is the greatest and there is no real reason to test or review Norton. This kind of reminds me of the Windows vs. Linux religious debates.

If the site hasn't tested Norton how can they say how good Norton is or isn't?

How can anyone see this otherwise if you look at the arguments logically and rationally without emotion? It's natural to want to side with the little guy when he's up against Goliath. These and other reasons are why I see a pro bias towards NOD and in some cases pro anything else besides Norton.

Again, I'm not bashing, flaming, or attacking. I have the utmost respect for the mods and Paul and the hard work they do here. Y'all have a super resource here that has helped many. These are my opinions and like the saying goes "everyone has one and most of them stink".

Mark

[msingle]

Sorry Paul, you must've posted while I was writing my novel. :)

Could you use the 30 day trial versions for testing or would you need longer? Just wondering.

Thanks for everything,
Mark

[Paul Wilders]

Mark,

Thanks for your comments ;)

Please make the distinction between our wilders.org crew and this board; the .org is quite willing to test this software - but on conditions as stated in my former post.

Since this board does host the Eset/NOD32 forums, it might not come as a surprise you'll find many (happy) NOD32 users over here, expressing their - mostly very positive - opinions.

I for one do consider magazine tests and reviews worth looking at.

As for reviews mentioned over on NOD32 sites: that's totally up to Eset, has nothing to do in any way with this board. Marketing is been done by every software developper the way they feel fit - that's far from an Eset perogative ;)

As for the VB rewards: IMHO the total score is still very much in favor from NOD32. That does not imply "bashing" other antivirus products.

IMHO scanning .zip files (they are harmless unless extracted, after which they will be taken care of) and scanning outgoing email are useless features indeed. Provided your system is clean, there's no need in any way to scan outgoing email.

The .org site hasn't tested Norton for reasons stated in my former post. Subsequently, the .org does not judge Norton in any way. Once more: please make the needed distinction between this board and the wilders.org site.

In case anyone feels happy to use Norton as an antivirus: enjoy, and use the software one's comfortable with.

Enjoy your day,

paul

[Paul Wilders]

-{ Quote: " quoting: msingle link=board=24;threadid=14471;start=0#msg91329 date=1065085205]
Sorry Paul, you must've posted while I was writing my novel. :)" }-

...and so did I, posting a reply in the meanwhile ;D

-{ Quote: "Could you use the 30 day trial versions for testing or would you need longer? Just wondering." }-

In essence, we could. In practice: no way. In order to keep on checking and (re-)testing updated/new versions, we do need full licenses.

regards.

paul

[martinguest]

Paul:

This is not meant as an attack. But what do you do with the licenses? Do they rapidly expire because they are special test licenses? If not: do you destroy them after the test so that nobody can claim that you have been "purchased"?

I know that this would be a ridiculous claim. But I am interested in your policy and good av testing policies in general.

Regards,

Martin

[Paul Wilders]

-{ Quote: " quoting: martinguest link=board=24;threadid=14471;start=0#msg91333 date=1065089470]
Paul:

This is not meant as an attack." }-

I'm sure it isn't, Martin ;)

-{ Quote: "But what do you do with the licenses? Do they rapidly expire because they are special test licenses? If not: do you destroy them after the test so that nobody can claim that you have been "purchased"?" }-

Licenses are used by our testers, they are full licenses - not expering, no special test licenses. They aren't destroyed - on the contrary: free renewals if necessary. I'm in the dark in regard to your remark "we have been purchased" - the way described is common usance.

-{ Quote: "I know that this would be a ridiculous claim. But I am interested in your policy and good av testing policies in general." }-

I can't speak for others in regard to software testing. We do receive quite some requests to test/review all sorts of security software by software vendors coming with full licenses.

Regards,

paul

[martinguest]

Paul:

Thanks for the reply.

I used the term "purchased" because someone (not me!) may argue that a full license is a kind of present which helps to stop av testers from writing harsh reviews.

But it appears that there is absolutely no basis for such a claim since you say that this procedure is common usance.

Regards,

Martin

[Straight Shooter]

I'm gonna see if Symantec can agree to get you folks a license and then you guys can do your test..

Paul, someone may be contacting you soon... ;D

[Dan Perez]

With regard to the issue of "bias", IMHO it is inevitable that this should creep in at times. People interested enough to really and truly delve into any field will develop some strong likes and dislikes; also people who have used products and had some bad experiences that they (rightly or wrongly) attribute to the use of a certain product will feel rather strongly regarding it. This board is a vehicle for people to ask and answer questions as well as to state their opinions and as people have their biases these biases will be reflected in their posts; but it is important to distinguish this from any systemic bias, any calcualted stance adopted by the moderators/administrators of the forum.

When there is a biased post that makes no attempt to substantiate claims made we have a clear reason to take steps but aside from that we have to be sensitive to the idea of a free exchange of ideas.

As to flames, we feel we really do a good job in preventing/quelling this without hampering the free exchange. If anyone feels that there is something that we missed they should feel free to use the "Report to Moderator" link on the post in question.

Regards,

Dan

[msingle]

Dan,

I agree that this board does a pretty good job of weeding out the flamers and bashers. I also agree that there are certain likes and dislikes we all have (Pepsi versus Coke, Ford versus Chevy, etc.). I also agree with Paul that there is a certain bias simply because certain products have their forums here - if this board hosted the Pepsi forums you're more likely to have a lot of Pepsi lovers by default.

What I don't see for the life of me is the double standard that seems to exist. If ITW detection and cleaning is the standard that all AV programs are judged by then 100% is 100% is 100%.

Paul mentioned that he believes NOD is still far ahead at VB over Norton. If Norton ran a little slower or didn't pick up a non-ITW virus that should be a non-issue when the award is what seems to be pushed - not the details.

If I am infected with ITW virus XXX and NOD gets it 100% and Norton gets it 100% then they should be equal. That's one of the main criteria for the VB testing. But again 100% is 100% doesn't seem to matter.

In football - if Ohio State wins consistently but just barely and Oklahoma blows everyone away there may be room for arguments over whose the best but a win is a win is a win.

The real problem I see is that 100% isn't taken for 100% because the details are always pointed to whenever that argument comes up.

The bias of one product over another leads to faulty thinking in my humble opinion.

For example, it's true that there may be no absolute reason that NOD should dig deep into a Zip file until the contents of that file are accessed at which time the resident scanner will pick up any problems. No reason until the resident scanner fails (gets turned off by mistake or otherwise, Windows problems, etc.) and at that point of imminent infection it would be really nice if there weren't a single point of failure by having NOD go deep into those Zip files earlier.

But admitting that this single point of failure exists, while preaching avoiding single point of failures would mean that the blessed NOD may not be as good as some others which would go into that Zip file earlier.

The same arguments could be made about outgoing scanning. But the bias won't let people see that the perfect situation, the perfect PC, and the perfect Windows configuration doesn't exist and that not scanning outgoing email may allow people to spread viruses if everything is not just right.

That's where advice and bias don't mix in my opinion but I'm probably guilty of it too.

Why not scan 100,000 files instead of 40,000 - just in case? Why not scan deep into Zip files before they are opened - just in case? Why not scan outgoing as well as incoming - just in case?

I'm sure my little post won't make a bit of difference. I'm not trying to convince anyone to use anything. I'm simply talking about the perceived bias that started this thread.

There's a lot of reason to pick one AV over another. But when recommendations are made let's stick to the facts and not let our likes or dislikes cloud our thinking or advice.

Mark

Edit - my comments aren't directed at any one person or group but in general.

[msingle]

A pertinent example of the bias/advice thing I talked about in my last post may be in order.

I've used Norton for years and until the last year or so never tried anything else. After trying other systems I was able to see faults and strengths of Norton.

One of Norton's problems, in my opinion, is the lack of daily automatic updates through LiveUpdate. If I were going to let my liking Norton get in the way of common sense I may make a statement when asked that automatic updates are unnecessary for the average user and therefore a non-issue.

When I take the bias towards Norton and emotion out of the equation though I see that automatic updates are important and if ever asked would let people know that is a flaw in their system instead of clouding my advice and judgment because I'm so sold on Norton.

The problem is that some of those faults (single points of failure in NOD) are swept away by calling them non-issues instead of admitting that, for example, you may be better protected with another system that scans in different ways and that hasn't missed a VB award since NOD last did.

I'm not a missionary and not trying to convert anyone over to anything but am a proponent of the unbiased truth even if our favorite software gets hurt in the telling of that truth. That's all.

Mark

[Dan Perez]

-{ Quote: "I'm sure my little post won't make a bit of difference." }-

I disagree. I'm sure your post helps the discussion a lot, unfortunately I cannot respond to most of your points as I am unaware of the criteria/methodology used in the testing so I will leave that aspect to others.

I do agree that integrating redundacy is usually to be desired in the security scheme of things but various vendors (and testers and users!) will gauge that value differently depending on the feature and the adverse impact of its use/inclusion. Some things are readily quantifiable and thus can be compared objectively but others are impossible to assess without a somewhat subjective element being introduced.

Useability/complexity comes to mind immediately as a subjective evaluation but it is a pretty important aspect of "worth" of a product for an enduser (and thus for a tester).

Anyways, I will leave to others the response to your specified points ;D

[Mr.Blaze]

:Dlol i think all randy qustions were answerd long time algo lol

but i do algree there is no real flameing here maybe a few smart a$$ remarks or ocaswtional critisisim but never a full out flame war.

i been flamed at two other security bords and it get real ugly real fast

here you usealy get spanked hard befor it even gets to that level

[AplusWebMaster]

;) I can say, from my experience in this Forum, there has never been any objection from anyone when I have referenced Symantec in a thread or post.
- They are, after all, the #1 AV vendor. But I hasten to add, IMHO, that doesn't make them the best. As long as "innovation" stays alive, I'll keep looking for the guy with the "better ideas", and that includes O/S's, too...

[Mr.Blaze]

:Dyeah nav is most populer cause the product in stores

thats perty muh why there number one cause there well knowen

[Straight Shooter]

-{ Quote: " quoting: AplusWebMaster link=board=24;threadid=14471;start=15#msg91497 date=1065188248]
;) I can say, from my experience in this Forum, there has never been any objection from anyone when I have referenced Symantec in a thread or post.
- They are, after all, the #1 AV vendor. But I hasten to add, IMHO, that doesn't make them the best. As long as "innovation" stays alive, I'll keep looking for the guy with the "better ideas", and that includes O/S's, too...
" }-

I don't care if Symantec is the best in detection, or if it has faults or advantages... That's NOT what my thread was about...

The ONLY topic I asked, Is why Symantec has NEVER been reviewed by Wilders in these 20 months.. Every other MAJOR has...

From Paul I first heard their was no time (in a previous post awhile ago)...NOW I hear it's due to a lack of having a licenses provided....

I hope this doesn't turn into an NAV bashing thread.. Just because it's the World's best selling AV doesn't matter to me either way... I just want to see NAV get a review on Wilders...THAT'S ALL!

[Peaches4U]

Most interesting posts. I did notice the lack of mention re NAV and often wondered why ... now I know!! :) I have been using NAV for several years now and it has let me down on occasion but that may well be that it is a user lack of knowledge thingie ... what NAV missed, AVG [a freebie] caught. No, I did not find a conflict in running both programs altho I am now back to NAV only, which expires end of this month. I do however, object that after paying top $$ for NAV that each year I have to fork out another $20.00 U.S. in order to continue receiving updates. Anyway, NAV has features that I like and grown accustomed to so a change to another AV program may not be as smooth as I would hope. Hmmm, now which ones shall I try???? By the way, NAV does have auto updates but I do not rely on them ... I still check manually.

[the mul]

To be honest i dont care what other peoples opinion of nav is, i like it,and have had no problems with nav.I will be staying with it in the near future.I have also read a lot of peoples opinions of nav in this forum, and a lot of other forums .There does seem to be a lot of negative opinions about this av.I also think that a review would be most welcome,and i am not saying nav is the best, as i also have nod as a backup av, but i just want it as others do to get a fair and honest review.

The Mul

[Paul Wilders]

Shooter,

-{ Quote: "From Paul I first heard their was no time (in a previous post awhile ago)...NOW I hear it's due to a lack of having a licenses provided...." }-

That's an easy one: only when we'll have spare time on our hands, we will contact a software vendor in regard to licenses. Until recently, we didn't have that spare time on our hands, so there has been no use in contacting the software vendor.

There's no use in asking for licenses until we do have the time - there's some logic in that. don't you agree? ;)

regards.

paul

[martinguest]

Hi Paul,

it's me again ;-)

I need to confess that I have not carefully examined the Wilders.Org Security Test's before. In respect of BitDefender, I found the following test report on your website:


*****************
"This fairly new anti-virus does a fine job overall. The program includes eight advanced
protection modules to keep your pc free from infections:

Mail Monitor, filtering POP3 mail (MS Exchange, Outlook, Outlook Express,
Qualcomm Eudora, Netscape Messenger), intercepting and blocking email
before its arrival.
Virus Shield, real-time protection , monitoring all active processes, intercepting
infected files.
Script Wall, protecting against script viruses, integrated in de Windows Scripting
Host.
Quarantine, stores suspected or infected files in a specific area, from where they
can be send to the support from avx.
Live!; an infected vut unknown virus can auto-disinfect itself using a download
function. checks contstantly for updates. If the product is destroyed, damaged
or a critical file is erased, an automatic auto-reload and replace will take place.
Download Center integrates into the browser, scans all downloaded file, when
infected it is safely moved and quarantined.
Office 2000: scans the Office 2000 Suite at the moment it's accessed, providing
a protection for MS Office 2000 users.
Scheduler; allows scanning and cleaning at a scheduled moment.

Though we could not test the latest feature - having no Office 2000 installed - we consider BitDefender a fair anti-virus; no more, no less. "

*******************

I wonder whether you also provide specific information about the tests performed, the test suite used etc. (This does not imply that it is necessary or appropriate to provide such information to the common user.)

Regards,

Martin

[Paul Wilders]

Hi Martin,

-{ Quote: "I wonder whether you also provide specific information about the tests performed, the test suite used etc. (This does not imply that it is necessary or appropriate to provide such information to the common user.)" }-

We don't - other than stating we generally speaking use approx. 50 - 100 randomly chosen viruses/trojan servers (packed and out of the box) from our several 100 gigs malware database. tests are performed on "fresh" installed O/S's.

We've taken this approach to avoid endless discussions/questions which are bound to come up after each and every test perfomed. Our relatively small staff prefers to spend their precious little time on other issues.

regards.

paul

[controler]

well here we are again ;D

Most of you know i was about the first one here to mention NAV
Why? well again because I have used Nortons products since day one.
I would like to refer you to my previous posts on Norton.
I will also again mention why outgoing e-mail is important.
I will say I do use NOD32 along with Notron.

Outgoing e-mail is important because of Keyloggers
Why?
well picture this.
A keylogger is trying to use your default e-mail program to send your data to a web based e-mail client.
I know for a fact that some use your default e-mail client withour your knowledge. They call the program up and you never see it. You don't even have to have your e-mail client running.
What Norton does is alerts you of an outgoing e-mail even when you don't have say Outlook running.
Believe me, I DO understand all the bells and whistles going on today with AV's.
I do believe NOD has made an outstanding improvement over the old days as far as interface goes for the common user.
To survive an Av needs to be made simple for the average user?
Please go look at my previous posts.
Oldtimers prevents me from remembering all I wrote lol

con

[sig]

Not to be argumentative, but if a keylogger is on your machine, how/why would Norton (or any other AV in this circumstance) catch it when it tries to send an outgoing email if it didn't catch the keylogger when it was loaded, executed and running?

[msingle]

-{ Quote: " quoting: sig link=board=24;threadid=14471;start=30#msg91763 date=1065314285]
Not to be argumentative, but if a keylogger is on your machine, how/why would Norton (or any other AV in this circumstance) catch it when it tries to send an outgoing email if it didn't catch the keylogger when it was loaded, executed and running?
" }-

If an AV has a single point of failure like a resident scanner and if there is a Windows problem or hiccup it may not be caught. That can happen to any AV or any security software. If other programs can misbehave because of Windows problems, security tools can as well.

In the case of Norton and outgoing email in this instance, if the resident didn't catch it the outgoing email scan hopefully would. If a scanner doesn't have outgoing scanning ability it wouldn't be able to catch it and you could have a problem.

Multiple layers of defense needs to be looked at in every aspect of every tool and situation. This same problem exists if an on demand scanner doesn't go deep into a zip file because it relies on the resident scanner to do all the work.

Mark

[controler]

mssingle?
believe me Norton does.

it monitors outgoing e-mail even when you don't have your default
(outlook) e-mail client running.
It pops ip a splash screen letting you know an outbound e-mail attemp has been made.
If you dought it, try it your self to be sure.
Install a keylogger on your own system and monitor the activity.
By installing a keylogger, I mean install a monitoring software yourslf not an trojan ect.
This takes into account you have allowed full access to your e-mail client with your firewall

[sig]

mssingle, I think perhaps you miss my point: if an AV doesn't catch malware using sig defs or heuristics, using those same tools it would not catch malware in outgoing mail either.

What controler seems to be referencing, if I understand correctly, is that Norton has an alert when outgoing mail is being sent. That's a different functionality than catching malware via scanning outgoing mail.

OE 6 SP 1 has an option which alerts when another app tries to send mail as the user. ZA Plus and Pro also have fetures restricting email sending to approved apps and preventing email address spoofing and mass mailings. So there are more apps and ways to restrict the sending of outgoing emails.

Outbound email scanning for malware alone can be no more than a panacea for users since it is limited by the detection abilities of the AV. The AV has already failed if it allowed malware to execute and run on the PC. If the AV's detection has not caught the malware it won't detect it via scanning outbound email either.

It appears what controller mentions is a different function which also can be found in other security apps as well. (I haven't had occasion to test OE's alert option.)

[controler]

Hi

What I ment to say in my case was using a Keylogger that is using calling up your e-mail client to send the information to the person that sent or placed on your machine , the Keylogger.
SOme Keyloggers may use their own server but that would be dumb of them because then your firewall would look at the attempt and say to itself, waitaminit, this app does not have rights to access an outgoing connection. On the other hand, most people give rights in their firewall to make incomming and outgoing connections.
I will even be more specific here and list one such Keylogger that doies use your default e-mail client to send the info. GhostKeylogger)
Give it a try. Download the trial and mess around with it.
when you download it , you are being infected but rather telling the logger which options you want to use. For instance, do you want the Users info to go to a Yahoo account you have set up? ect.
The best way to see how things work with your security is try out some programs on your own.
it will be harmless. The mail will go to your own specified e-mail address not some hackers. You tehn will be able to try your firewall setting and or your AV.
Good luck to you

One important thing I forgot to mention. If the Keylogger is in the AV database, your scan will find it but if not included in the database then you would be screwed. This is where a program like Norton alers you.



con

[whyme2]

I guess the real question is why anyone wants wilders to review NAV? Given what Paul said, he wont tell you how he does his test, wont tell you what malware is used, and uses 100 malware at the most.


So, you wont be able to confirm or deny his findings, which incase you don't know yet, will be poor, NAV will be rated less than NOD on any test Paul does, this is a NOD site after all.

If a NOD site said another AV was better than NOD, people would simply buy the other AV, NOD would then miss out on a sale, so it's good business on a vendors site to downgrade the competition.

[FanJ]

Paul is an honest, honourable, incorruptible man.
There cannot be any doubt about that !


Sorry, I'm a little bit afraid that you're making a little mistake: this is not a NOD-site.
This board has the official ESET-NOD32 forum, yes!
And it is proud to have it !
(Just like it is proud to have the public DiamondCS, Look 'n' Stop, Javacool-software forums).
The NOD32 site is here: http://www.nod32.com/

[Whyme2]

-{ Quote: " quoting: FanJ link=board=24;threadid=14471;start=30#msg91849 date=1065366473]
Paul is an honest, honourable, incorruptible man.
There cannot be any doubt about that !


Sorry, I'm a little bit afraid that you're making a little mistake: this is not a NOD-site.
This board has the official ESET-NOD32 forum, yes!
And it is proud to have it !
(Just like it is proud to have the public DiamondCS, Look 'n' Stop, Javacool-software forums).
The NOD32 site is here: http://www.nod32.com/

" }-

That of course is your opinion, I have my own, Would you ask Ford dealership to review a Dodge? Would you ask The Cleaner to review TDS-4? would you ask McAfee to review NOD?

Of course not, so why ask A NOD forum to review a competitor, and expect an honest review.

Paul has already shown he has something to hide, by testing such limited amount of malware and not giving full discloser of files tested, and how the test was conducted.

The test is dishonest, before it has began, under Paul conditions.

[Pieter_Arntz]

Hi Whyme2,

I resent that. How can you be besides the truth, when you say nothing? As a reminder: the question was "Why can't Wilder's review Norton's?"

Apparently you don´t know how this board works and how it relates to the wilders.org site. Maybe you should do some reasearch.

It is your prerogative to trust Paul or not. The topic of this thread is pretty clear. The answer Paul has given is pretty clear, so one more post in here that is too far off-topic (and that includes how tests should be performed) and you will find this thread locked.

Regards,

Pieter

[Whyme2]

-{ Quote: " quoting: Pieter_Arntz link=board=24;threadid=14471;start=30#msg91857 date=1065368575]
Hi Whyme2,

I resent that. How can you be besides the truth, when you say nothing? As a reminder: the question was "Why can't Wilder's review Norton's?"

Apparently you don´t know how this board works and how it relates to the wilders.org site. Maybe you should do some reasearch.

It is your prerogative to trust Paul or not. The topic of this thread is pretty clear. The answer Paul has given is pretty clear, so one more post in here that is too far off-topic (and that includes how tests should be performed) and you will find this thread locked.

Regards,

Pieter
" }-

My posts where 100% on topic the reason wilders can't review NAV is it's a conflict of interest NOD is paying Paul plain and simple.

Now you can claim NOD doesn't pay Paul and lock the thread if you like, that's up to you, but Paul's hand is in NOD's pocket.

[FanJ]

-{ Quote: " quoting: Whyme2 link=board=24;threadid=14471;start=30#msg91861 date=1065369166]....
NOD is paying Paul plain and simple.

Now you can claim NOD doesn't pay Paul and lock the thread if you like, that's up to you, but Paul's hand is in NOD's pocket.
" }-

These are wild accusations, if not insults, with not even the slightest truth in it.
You have no idea about what you're talking about.

Paul is an honest, honourable, incorruptible man.
There cannot be any doubt about that !

[Whyme2]

-{ Quote: " quoting: FanJ link=board=24;threadid=14471;start=30#msg91862 date=1065369773]
-{ Quote: " quoting: Whyme2 link=board=24;threadid=14471;start=30#msg91861 date=1065369166]....
NOD is paying Paul plain and simple.

Now you can claim NOD doesn't pay Paul and lock the thread if you like, that's up to you, but Paul's hand is in NOD's pocket.
" }-

These are wild accusations, if not insults, with not even the slightest truth in it.
You have no idea about what you're talking about.

Paul is an honest, honourable, incorruptible man.
There cannot be any doubt about that !

" }-

You need to talk to Paul, even he will admit NOD pays him, plus gives away free license to Paul so he can give them to whom ever he choose.

If any other forum received gifts and money from a vendor, would you believe a review they gave on the product?

[Bdiamond]

Well, what do you make of the Rokop AV evaluation which gives NOD almost the same rating as NAV? They both perform about the same and in the bottom half of the AV's tested. (see http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,7837164~root=security,1~mode=flat)
Is Rokop dishonest?

It seems that all the AV tests are subject to criticism; however thats a long way from saying any of them are dishonest.

In any case it would be helpful to know why you feel any test is dishonest aside from the fact you disagree with methodology employed.

It may be that you are just uncomfortable with their interpertation and unable to place them into any sort of reasonable perspective?


Regards,
Bdiamond

[Pieter_Arntz]

I think this thread has outlived it´s purpose.
Closed untill one of the admins decides otherwise.

Regards,

Pieter

[Paul Wilders]

Toney,

Once more, you've put a smile on my face ;) - you won't give up in trying to disturb the community, don't you?

Let's set the record straight:

the wilders.org has been testing and reviewing antiviruses long before this board has been created, and subsequently long before the NOD32 Forums are hosted over here. That does take care of your presumed bias No tests by anyone or any organization will use thousands malware files while performing tests - Rokop has been mentioned, and the same goes for all others The most hilarious statement is us being paid by any software developper/vendor - we don't even accept payed advertisements, don't (re)sell software in spite of many requests. On the contrary: we do provide free servers for those we believe deserve so - at our costs: ever noticed www.wilderssecurity.net (http://www.wilderssecurity.net) and www.wilderssecurity.info (http://www.wilderssecurity.info) for example?

Nice try once more, Toney - but failed again ;).

On a side note: wouldn't it be energy far better spent dropping these rather silly attempts to cause havoc over here, and switch to useful things in life, like most adults do? This is endless loop is getting rather boring, actually...

Take good care,

paul