New PCMagazine Antivirus Test/Review

[RaLX]

I think that's a good review. :)

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,4149,989867,00.asp




Added URL tags

[Technodrome]

I think its still rubbish!



Technodrome

[Tinribs]

At least they didnt invent some 'virus expert' who tested them all under 'laboratory' conditions ;)

I must admit although I'm not their biggest fan I found the reviews at least factual and balanced.

[root]

Before I clicked on the link, I knew their choice was going to be NAV or McAfee. It is easy to have a product to place ahead of others when you use unimportant criteria like scanning outgoing email and working on PDAs. Oh, and don't forget NAV has a pretty face. ;D
Nothing seems to change in the magazine articles. I have no use for such. At least this one didn't have some bozo testing with suedo viruses, as stated already.
Fair enough to post it and let everyone make up their own minds.

[Technodrome]

-{ Quote: " quoting: root link=board=24;threadid=8253;start=0#53602 date=1049395604]
Oh, and don't forget NAV has a pretty face. ;D
" }-

....and its yellow. ;D



Technodrome

[jmschwartz]

Well, at least NOD32 was mentioned favorably a few times ;)

Regards,
Jim

[RaLX]

I put it because the comments on the review looks based on true facts and in every moment they clarify the reasons to all the points, I think that virus detection in fact is the most important thing but as an example NOD1 to me looks like a very ugly and confusing AV contrary to NOD2 that looks so very good and powerful, big and Important change if you want to be a Better Product. So there are other points to take in count like this review did IMO.

Moreover I think that Norton in detection rate is a real fighter just like NOD and both comes average in trojan detection. :P

[notageek]

I'm glad to see PC Mag.com picking NAV. ;D ;D ;D Isn't there NAV ads in PC Mag? I'm not sure if there is any McAfee I don't read the mag or mess with the web site after they went to making people subcribe to get free tools. lol But than again I only used 1 of their tools anyway.

[controler]

SMACK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Yes it is important to scan incomming mail duh?
Now I know you didn't just fall of da old turnip truck ;D
yes NAV blocks script also.
Norton has been around longer than any other AV PERIOD.....

NAV is the best AV as far as I am concerned.

I still think you need to try the tests yourself and be da judge.

[notageek]

Hey Controller, I use McAfee. It don't have an email scanner for OE just for Outlook. But it does have a HaWK script stopped and HAWK Email Protection. But everyone has their own choice in AV's. NAV has it's good sides and bad sides. Other AV's haves their good sides and bad sides.

[Smokey]

-{ Quote: " quoting: RaLX link=board=24;threadid=8253;start=0#53586 date=1049386584]
I think that's a good review. :)
" }-

I agree with Technodrome: the review is indeed rubbish! :(

[Straight Shooter]

Just to throw in my 5 cents worth, I thought the test was a fine example of "fair and balanced reporting"... The only gripe I have is why weren't Kaspersky and some others included...?

Eset should be happy that;
1. PC Mag included them. I don't mean this in a negative way. The new version is probably worthy of their consideration... I think NOD32 is starting to make waves to the mainstream...

2. They were rated highly! No, they didn't win, but, honestly, I agree with almost everything they said on NOD32. NOD32 does not have malicious script protection, Their web sites do not have much info in terms of virus info. They did say, a couple of times, that the program has a steller detection rate. IT IS HARD FOR NEWBIES TO FIGURE THIS PROGRAM OUT. I never would have been able to use it 6 - 7 years ago. Hell, I was using AOL then!!!
Be honest, it can be a hard program to use... I sincerely see PCMAG's point... They also mentioned the program is fast.. Basically, nothing but nice things from PCMAG for ESET...

[Technodrome]

They are amateurs…big time!

They said "McAfee's poor showing at AV-Test.org could be a result of its not using a lot of heuristics to catch zoo viruses." Hahhaha, they got no clue…. At least I’d pay more attention to test sites. Money speaks here…As always!

They don't know what they are talking about. You got results available from av-test.org and decided it for yourself.



Technodrome

[Firefighter]

To Technodrome from Firefighter!

As I remember right the best heuristics in the Heureka 2 test were DrWeb and F-Secure. After those two was McAfee. So for Symantec it is best to wait what ever!

I don't understand Symantec's payed tests, because Norton is not so bad detector at all, why still manipulate people all the time? ;D :o

"The truth is out there, but it hurts!"

Best Regards,
Firefighter!

[Technodrome]

-{ Quote: " quoting: Firefighter link=board=24;threadid=8253;start=0#53889 date=1049648283]
To Technodrome from Firefighter!

As I remember right the best heuristics in the Heureka 2 test were DrWeb and F-Secure. After those two was McAfee. So for Symantec it is best to wait what ever!" }-

In regard to that test, yes! IMHO, best heuristics engines are:
NOD32, Command AV/F-prot,DrWeb,KAV and McAfee( no particular order)!

-{ Quote: "I don't understand Symantec's payed tests, because Norton is not so bad detector at all, why still manipulate people all the time? ;D :o!" }-

Norton is good,but there are better solutions. Symantec guys want you to think that they are THE BEST. Thats y they are all over the net (Magazines).

-{ Quote: ""The truth is out there, but it hurts!"" }-

The truth's only another kind of lie! 8)



Technodrome

[Spiros]

The PC Magazine reports of NOD32 missing 1 x VB100 test, and NAV missing 0 x VB100 test. It is a fact NOD32 missed on the Linux VB100 test, but this is a test for which NAV did not submit. So, clearly NOD32 is penaltied un-fairly. I am surprised to see Eset's Rodzilla has not commented about this discrepancy.

In generality, it was reasonably fair test to all, but no surprise that NAV wins ahead of NOD32 by slight manipulation of the facts, after all, it is a ZD publication. :-)

Spiros - Nicosia - Cyprus

[JimIT]

-{ Quote: " quoting: Spiros link=board=24;threadid=8253;start=15#53987 date=1049714560]
The PC Magazine reports of NOD32 missing 1 x VB100 test, and NAV missing 0 x VB100 test. It is a fact NOD32 missed on the Linux VB100 test, but this is a test for which NAV did not submit. So, clearly NOD32 is penaltied un-fairly. I am surprised to see Eset's Rodzilla has not commented about this discrepancy.Spiros - Nicosia - Cyprus
" }-

I disagree with the "unfair" comment.

If Eset didn't want to be tested on the Linux platform, they shouldn't have submitted their AV. I'm not speaking for Eset, but I would think that they have "broad enough shoulders" to take their licks when they get 'em without whining about what's "unfair". They certainly have plenty of skins on the wall. ;)

[msingle]

I'm not trying to pick a fight here but wanted to make some comments:

1. For those who say that these tests are all about money does that mean if Avast or Eset starting advertising heavily that they would all the sudden be #1?

2. For those that say money tarnishes the independence of these tests and results what about Rod saying that Eset sponsored a Virus Bulletin conference one year? Wouldn't that tarnish those results?

3. For the people who proclaim that Virus Bulletin is the best testing organization, the last time Norton didn't win a VB 100% award was 9/99. The last time Eset didn't win a VB 100% award was 4/2002. Now many of the Nod believers dismiss that because it was Linux so the last time Eset failed a Windows based test was 11/2000.

Yes you can argue that Nod has more awards than Norton but isn't the great thing about software and people is that they can change and get better? So based on this Nod has failed more recently than Norton.

My two cents for what it's worth.

[Technodrome]

-{ Quote: " quoting: msingle link=board=24;threadid=8253;start=15#54064 date=1049763855]
1. For those who say that these tests are all about money does that mean if Avast or Eset starting advertising heavily that they would all the sudden be #1?" }-

Hyndai (car maker) is heavily advertising thier cars. Does it mean that Hyndai is the best cars? I don't thinks so...

This means nothing. Indepedent test(tests) is the only thing that counts. NOD32 is the best ITW virus detector. PERIOD.


-{ Quote: "2. For those that say money tarnishes the independence of these tests and results what about Rod saying that Eset sponsored a Virus Bulletin conference one year? Wouldn't that tarnish those results??" }-

They've sponsored event not Magazine. Do you see ESET's ad banner at virusbtn.com ?

Mcafee sponsored this event as well. Check out McAfee's VB passes. Tell us what do you see?

-{ Quote: "3. For the people who proclaim that Virus Bulletin is the best testing organization" }-
Not ordinary people, BUT AV experts world wide. ;)

-{ Quote: " the last time Norton didn't win a VB 100% award was 9/99. The last time Eset didn't win a VB 100% award was 4/2002. Now many of the Nod believers dismiss that because it was Linux so the last time Eset failed a Windows based test was 11/2000. " }-

Read archived issues from VB Magazine, you may find the number of viruses Norton missed durinig this period. Read and see different picture!


Technodrome

[notageek]

Hi Technodrome, I find McAfee a good being a good AV. It might not be the best at detecting trojans like KAV but it's not bad. Now if some company buys ad spot in mags, does that mean that that mag is going to think it's the best? If that's the case than there should be a lot of mags say Dell and Compaqs are the best computers out there. (Dell is a great computer, just trying to make a point) :)

Maybe I need to advertise in a magazine to become the best of something. ;D J/K lol.

[msingle]

-{ Quote: "Hyndai (car maker) is heavily advertising thier cars. Does it mean that Hyndai is the best cars? I don't thinks so...

This means nothing. Indepedent test(tests) is the only thing that counts. NOD32 is the best ITW virus detector. PERIOD." }-

Okay if advertising means nothing then why all the conspiracy theories about the only reason Norton winning these magazine reviews is based on the amount of advertising spent with the magazine?

Hardly anyone here thinks PCMag or Cnet is independent (regardless of their technical ability or inability to perform these tests) because of advertising by McAfee and Symantec.

-{ Quote: "
They've sponsored event not Magazine. Do you see ESET's ad banner at virusbtn.com ?

Mcafee sponsored this event as well. Check out McAfee's VB passes. Tell us what do you see? " }-

Money is money is money.

-{ Quote: "3. For the people who proclaim that Virus Bulletin is the best testing organization
Not ordinary people, BUT AV experts world wide. ;)

the last time Norton didn't win a VB 100% award was 9/99. The last time Eset didn't win a VB 100% award was 4/2002. Now many of the Nod believers dismiss that because it was Linux so the last time Eset failed a Windows based test was 11/2000.

Read archived issues from VB Magazine, you may find the number of viruses Norton missed durinig this period. Read and see different picture!" }-

As far as I know unless you buy a subscription you can't read the in-depth reviews. So for the average person they would go by the award given because that information is freely available.

But it sounds like you're saying that the giving of the award isn't what's important. It sounds like you're saying you need to study the details of each test.

So is it the award that's important or the details? 100% detection of all ITW viruses with no false positives is what's needed for the award. What else is there? (I'm not talking about speed, resources used, usability, etc. - only for VB tests)

If it's the award, and Virus Bulletin is the premiere testing organization, and if their integrity and independence can't be questioned, and if in the end what matters is the giving of the award then Norton is every bit as good as NOD and better since 9/99.

My two cents!

[msingle]

And regarding the legitimacy of this test, NOD32 touts the good things that are said in the review on their web site.

So maybe I'm a little jaded here but either the PCMag tests are legitimate or not. If they are great. If they aren't great.

But don't curse the test, the methodologies employed, the testers, the owners of the magazine who paid for the test but still use the results or comments that benefit you.

[JimIT]

-{ Quote: " quoting: msingle link=board=24;threadid=8253;start=15#54100 date=1049785346]
And regarding the legitimacy of this test, NOD32 touts the good things that are said in the review on their web site.

So maybe I'm a little jaded here but either the PCMag tests are legitimate or not. If they are great. If they aren't great.

But don't curse the test, the methodologies employed, the testers, the owners of the magazine who paid for the test but still use the results or comments that benefit you.

" }-

I have to agree! ;)

[Optik]

To msingle from Optik:

-{ Quote: " quoting: msingle link=board=24;threadid=8253;start=15#54099 date=1049784468]
-{ Quote: "Norton is every bit as good as NOD and better since 9/99." }-

ROFLMAO" }-

[Technodrome]

-{ Quote: " quoting: msingle link=board=24;threadid=8253;start=15#54099 date=1049784468]
So is it the award that's important or the details? 100% detection of all ITW viruses with no false positives is what's needed for the award. What else is there?
" }-

As I said, read and see!
http://www.virusbtn.com/magazine/archives/index.xml


Technodrome

[Technodrome]

-{ Quote: " quoting: msingle link=board=24;threadid=8253;start=15#54099 date=1049784468]
Norton is every bit as good as NOD and better since 9/99." }-

Funny!

http://www.virusbtn.com/magazine/archives/index.xml



Technodrome

[msingle]

-{ Quote: " quoting: Technodrome link=board=24;threadid=8253;start=15#54200 date=1049857307]
-{ Quote: " quoting: msingle link=board=24;threadid=8253;start=15#54099 date=1049784468]
Norton is every bit as good as NOD and better since 9/99." }-

Funny!

http://www.virusbtn.com/magazine/archives/index.xml
" }-

Like I mentioned in a previous post the details aren't available to the public unless they are subscribers.

If you go solely by being awarded the VB100 award which means there are NO misses on ITW viruses and NO false positives then Norton is every bit as good as NOD.

I'm not talking about ease of use, personal experience, cost, support, information available on their site, speed, resources used, or anything like that.

I'm talking only about the award which seems to be one of Eset's biggest PR things - touting how many times they have won the award which is okay.

I mean just from a common sense stand point if product A wins the award and so does product B then you have to say that they are both okay IF you trust the review, testing methodology, independence, etc.

Sure there are plenty of other reasons to choose one product over another including some that I listed above.

It seems to me, though, that according to many of the posts here that no other testing matters besides that done by Virus Bulletin. They are all wrong with skewed results, non-expert testers, rubbish, etc. It's those OTHER tests that seem to consistently have something negative to say about NOD.

If tests #1, #2, #3, and #4 all choose product A over NOD they are wrong according to many here. But when test #5 (Virus Bulletin) awards both products their 100% detection award apparently that's rubbish as well at least when it comes to product A.

I am NOT anti-NOD or anti-anything even though it may seem like it.

I'll compare it to college football (USA) before there was overtime in case of a tie.

If team A and team B each have 14 points at the end of the fourth quarter that means for that game taking into account the ONLY criteria that matters (the final score) they were EQUAL. But the fans of Team A, after the fact, will say that team B cheated, had too many fast players, it was raining, or whatever they can say to make it seem unequal. But the fact is that for that game, they were equal. Period.

So if our goal is 100% ITW virus detection and repair then according to the Virus Bulletin awards NOD and Norton are equal and Norton has "won" more times since 9/99 than NOD has.

[Technodrome]

-{ Quote: " quoting: msingle link=board=24;threadid=8253;start=15#54205 date=1049860004]

Like I mentioned in a previous post the details aren't available to the public unless they are subscribers.
" }-

Yes, they are available. The only thing you need to do is to click that link I gave you. You can read archived issues of VB Magazine.


Technodrome

[msingle]

Technodrome,

I've been there before and yesterday and just now. The comparative reviews in detail are not available to the public. Some of the other articles are but not the indepth reviews.

For example: http://www.virusbtn.com/magazine/archives/200206/ there is no active link to the reviews. They are all that way.

[Technodrome]

LOL!
Scroll down till you see this...

[msingle]

Been there, done that and kept getting a 403 Forbidden message.

Just figured out that 9/2002 and after aren't available because you get that message. But I'm downloading some other issues prior to that now.

Thanks Technodrome!

[Technodrome]

No Problem!

Currently October and September issues are unavailable. They were on line like a few days ago. ::)


Technodrome

[msingle]

Technodrome,

This is great! I'm reading the first full issue now. I see what you mean about the details - they are helpful - will know more once I read a whole bunch.

I feel like an idiot because I've been trying to figure out how to pay for a subscription so that I could see those details for months now and it was all right there under my nose. :P

Even though I don't agree with everything I've seen you say this was SO helpful in pointing me in the right direction to find those details that I gave out my very first cookie or whatever they are called to you.

Again thanks!

[Technodrome]

Very good reading indeed. ;)

Hey man, I was hungry so thanks for the cookie! ;D ;)


Take care!


Technodrome

[muf]

NOD32 users make me laugh. Doesn't matter how many 'other' test sites NOD does average at, it always comes back to how you do in the 'virus bulletin' test. Virus Bulletin is the ONLY test site it performs well at. Think about that comment for a second, its the ONLY test site it does well at. Try opening your eyes for once and see the bigger picture. Combine all the test results from say 4 or 5 of the main test sites and NOD32 is good, but just not one of the top 5.

Now the top AV's overall when you combine the results from the different test sites seem to be F-Secure, AVK, McAfee, KAV, NAV(in no particular order). All these perform at the very highest level in all of the main tests.

I'll say one thing, I don't disagree that NOD is a quality AV, i've used it and its very very good. But what rattles my cage is that the NOD users can't string 5 words together without virus bulletin being mentioned. You are all obsessed with it! Lets hope VB doesn't shut down because your one and only shining star will go out...

muf

[Paul Wilders]

-{ Quote: " quoting: muf link=board=24;threadid=8253;start=30#55570 date=1050755167]
NOD32 users make me laugh." }-

Well, it's always a good thing if something lifts your mood - most NOD32 users are happy campers as well ;)

-{ Quote: "Doesn't matter how many 'other' test sites NOD does average at, it always comes back to how you do in the 'virus bulletin' test. Virus Bulletin is the ONLY test site it performs well at. Think about that comment for a second, its the ONLY test site it does well at. Try opening your eyes for once and see the bigger picture. Combine all the test results from say 4 or 5 of the main test sites and NOD32 is good, but just not one of the top 5." }-

A simple comment will do here: NOD32 is in essence an ITW antivirus. As it happens, vbulletin is focussed on ITW detection. Conclusion: NOD32 excells as for what the software is designed for - no way around that one.

As for "other main test sites" (?): as you could have known, they aren't focussed on ITW virus detection only; therefore your comparison doesn't stick.

-{ Quote: "Now the top AV's overall when you combine the results from the different test sites seem to be F-Secure, AVK, McAfee, KAV, NAV(in no particular order). All these perform at the very highest level in all of the main tests." }-

See above. IMO better go for the best ITW antivirus - NOD32 - and use dedicated other software to handle other malware (TDS3 is a nice example here). Layered defense comes as an extra this way.

-{ Quote: "I'll say one thing, I don't disagree that NOD is a quality AV, i've used it and its very very good. But what rattles my cage is that the NOD users can't string 5 words together without virus bulletin being mentioned. You are all obsessed with it!" }-

IMO you underestimate NOD32 users; they are fully aware of using the best ITW antivirus - as they are aware of the fact, a layered defense for different sorts of malware is the preferable way to go.

-{ Quote: "Lets hope VB doesn't shut down because your one and only shining star will go out..." }-

Can't follow you here - I'm sure trying! ;)

regards.

paul

[Technodrome]

I'll just add that is amazing how many viruses NOD32 is able to detected by heuristic! Many people don't pay attention to heuristic power.

I have a large collection of viruses and it’s amazing how many viruses NOD32 will label as unknown or suspicious. That is a BIG PLUS in my book. NOD32 has HEURISTIC engine the way it should be. Props to ESET Team.

No Muf you haven’t use NOD32 long enough. Otherwise you'd know!


Only improvement that ESET should do is to add more Trojan\Backdoor sings (they are already doing this) so my mom (an average user) don't have to worry about TDS configuration. ;)


Technodrome

[muf]

As i said, i like NOD32 and think its a great AV. Just the users constantly mentioning VB test record thats bugging me. I think you will find that the AV using community know that NOD32 is a great product. But i think you'll find that like me, they are getting a little tired of hearing about its record on the VB test site. Ok how about this - It's the greatest AV in the world, and its not designed to detect in the zoo viruses, and its not designed to catch trojans, and it scans faster than anything else, and it takes up hardly any resource. There, happy now...

muf

[Tinribs]

Very, thanks ;)

[Smokey]

-{ Quote: " quoting: Technodrome link=board=24;threadid=8253;start=30#55644 date=1050768421]

I'll just add that is amazing how many viruses NOD32 is able to detected by heuristic! Many people don't pay attention to heuristic power.

" }-
Very wise words of a wise man :)

IMO strong heuristic power is the most important part of an AV, and indeed many people don't realize the real importance of strong heuristics :-\

[Technodrome]

-{ Quote: " quoting: muf link=board=24;threadid=8253;start=30#55703 date=1050787742]
As i said, i like NOD32 and think its a great AV. Just the users constantly mentioning VB test record thats bugging me." }-

NAV user points to cnet or PC Magazine

F-Secure, KAV user points to VTC or Magdeburg. etc

Nothing is wrong here. ::)

-{ Quote: "I think you will find that the AV using community know that NOD32 is a great product. But i think you'll find that like me, they are getting a little tired of hearing about its record on the VB test site." }-
Every AV product that doesn’t miss a single virus should be praised and respected.

No, the AV user community does not getting tired of it. If they were they would not pay attention to VB awards. They only get tired if their product fails. It works just like your football or basketball team. Better team wins, loser goes home.


-{ Quote: "Ok how about this - It's the greatest AV in the world, and its not designed to detect in the zoo viruses, and its not designed to catch trojans, and it scans faster than anything else, and it takes up hardly any resource. There, happy now...
" }-

NOD32 it’s designed to detect zoo viruses, but does not detect all of them. Today, by using a virus generator I can make a hundred different viruses and never released them. ZOO viruses are NOT a real threat to users. Once zoo virus is released it will become an ITW viruses and AV company should add it.

NOD32 could be improved in regards of Trojan detection and author acknowledges this. It will be improved.



Technodrome

[Technodrome]

-{ Quote: " quoting: Smokey link=board=24;threadid=8253;start=30#55709 date=1050788549]
Very wise words of a wise man :)" }-

Thank you Smokey! ;D 8)

-{ Quote: "IMO strong heuristic power is the most important part of an AV, and indeed many people don't realize the real importance of strong heuristics :-\
" }-

I wish there were more people to realized this. ;)



Technodrome

[Pretender]

You all might want to check your systems for Virus laying around now. The last PCmag article about the review of anti-spyware programs contained a lot of spyware....... >:(

Quoted from securitynewsportal.com:


Ziff Davis and PC Magazine are Spyware Hypocrits - Do as we say - not as we do
Web site plants spyware on users reading anti-spyware articles
04-09-2003 2:38:21 PM CST -- from a furious guy in the third cubicle on the left


There are some days where things happen that leave you scratching your head in amazement. Today is one of those days. Earlier I posted up an article and links that highlighted three quite interesting articles posted at the PC Magazine's web site. The articles involved spyware and anti-spyware solutions, titled PC Mag does an Indepth look at Spyware and anti-spyware solutions. It turns out that PC Magazine is either hypocritical or totally unaware of how their advertisers are planting spyware all over their viewers computers.

I received no less then fifty complaints from users who had detected spyware being planted on their computers while visiting Ziff Davis's PC Magazine web site. Not one spyware, not two spyware... but up to THIRTY advertisers spywares... This may go a long way to explaining why the intrepid Ziff Davis writer appeared rather shocked when he tested his own computer and found a slew of spywares on it - he probably had just finished surfing around the PC Magazine web site prior to testing the anti-spyware software. Possibly PC Magazine and Ziff Davis should not bother to write any future articles on the topic of advertiser's spyware when it turns out that they appear to be a veritable hotbed for the planting of spyware on their visitors computers. All in all, it is rather disturbing and will probably come as quite a surprise to the folks who trust PC Magazine and Ziff Davis. Let us all be thankful they were not writing an 'anti-trojan' article. Goodness only knows what they may have planted on their visitors if this anti-spyware hypocrisy is any indication




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Attached below are the results of one users 'spyware alert logs' after visiting PC Magazine to read those anti-spyware articles
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

04/09/2003 20:09:44 ~ [action:deleted ] found spyware cookie ******@atdmt[2].txt
04/09/2003 20:09:45 ~ [action:deleted ] found spyware cookie ******@mediaplex[1].txt
04/09/2003 20:09:45 ~ [action:deleted ] found spyware cookie ******@questionmarket[1].txt
04/09/2003 20:09:46 ~ [action:deleted ] found spyware cookie ******@atdmt[1].txt
04/09/2003 20:10:01 ~ [action:deleted ] found spyware cookie ******@mediaplex[1].txt
04/09/2003 20:10:01 ~ [action:deleted ] found spyware cookie ******@questionmarket[1].txt
04/09/2003 20:12:05 ~ [action:deleted ] found spyware cookie ******@mediaplex[1].txt
04/09/2003 20:12:06 ~ [action:deleted ] found spyware cookie ******@questionmarket[1].txt
04/09/2003 20:13:40 ~ [action:deleted ] found spyware cookie ******@mediaplex[1].txt
04/09/2003 20:13:40 ~ [action:deleted ] found spyware cookie ******@questionmarket[1].txt
04/09/2003 20:13:47 ~ [action:deleted ] found spyware cookie ******@questionmarket[1].txt
04/09/2003 20:13:57 ~ [action:deleted ] found spyware cookie ******@questionmarket[1].txt
04/09/2003 20:14:49 ~ [action:deleted ] found spyware cookie ******@mediaplex[1].txt
04/09/2003 20:14:50 ~ [action:deleted ] found spyware cookie ******@questionmarket[1].txt
04/09/2003 20:14:56 ~ [action:deleted ] found spyware cookie ******@questionmarket[1].txt
04/09/2003 20:15:47 ~ [action:deleted ] found spyware cookie ******@mediaplex[1].txt
04/09/2003 20:15:48 ~ [action:deleted ] found spyware cookie ******@questionmarket[1].txt
04/09/2003 20:16:03 ~ [action:deleted ] found spyware cookie ******@questionmarket[1].txt


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Another user provided the following information about his visit to the Ziff Davis - PC Magazine Web Site after viewing those articles : " I went for "The Ziff Davis" read on the PC Mag site, and I read the whole article...; the result was over a hundred of the so called "tracking cookies" of mixed brands, blocked by both my firewall and CookieWall. A nice score for an article like that... In the comment you didn't mention the number of aggressive "pop-ups" (20 during my session) and webbugs (countless) they drop on a "victim's" system. How good the information they give may be, IMO we should be very careful in directing people to their site! "

[octogen]

-{ Quote: " quoting: Smokey link=board=24;threadid=8253;start=30#55709 date=1050788549]
IMO strong heuristic power is the most important part of an AV, and indeed many people don't realize the real importance of strong heuristics :-\
" }-

This was the main reason I chose NOD32. A lot of AV programs along with NOD32 do well in ITW tests, but NOD32 has not only strong heuristics, but proven strong heuristics (I've posted in other threads how many notorious viruses it has detected by heuristics). This counts for a lot in my book. Just my 2 cents.