New Detection Test - Dennis Labs

[subset]

Originally Posted by Fajo

Its of interest to them simply because now they can slap another sticker on a box and people that don't know any better will go "That one has more awards lets buy it."

But who buys a collection of cups and trophies for his showcase just to tell everyone - Look, I'm simply fantastic.

If Symantec were a person, I would fetch a doctor.

Cheers

[Fajo]

Originally Posted by subset

But who buys a collection of cups and trophies for his showcase just to tell everyone - Look, I'm simply fantastic.

If Symantec were a person, I would fetch a doctor.

Cheers

Ok Normally I don't post so off-topic.

But this is the first post in a very long time that made me spit my drink all over my monitor from laughing, had to share that.

[EliteKiller]

At least Symantec isn't afraid to have their products tested unlike some other well known vendors.

Even if you don't approve of Dennis Labs you should keep in mind that Symantec scores well on AV-test & AV-comparatives.

[Fajo]

Originally Posted by EliteKiller

At least Symantec isn't afraid to have their products tested unlike some other well known vendors.

Even if you don't approve of Dennis Labs you should keep in mind that Symantec scores well on AV-test & AV-comparatives.

Its not how well it score's that disturbs me its how low they show other products scoring Even tho every REAL REPUTABLE test shows the complete opp. Guess take what you want from this but this is nothing but a Advertising move and a stupid move on Symantec's part to post it here expecting support.

[MikeNash]

Originally Posted by Fajo

Ok Normally I don't post so off-topic.

But this is the first post in a very long time that made me spit my drink all over my monitor from laughing, had to share that.

Subset's posts are often coated in a mixture of wit and beautiful, elegant sarcasm. Even when you're the target of it - as we sometimes are - one can't help but grin at his choice of words.

[smage]

I think that vendors should not be allowed to do their own testing and post the results, there is no objectivity and independence in such tests as the company who sponsors the test always win.
This is why we have independent organsisations like AV-C.

By the way, I was watching a review of Norton 360 v4 Beta and though Norton did well, I was shocked to see an association between Symantec and ASk.

-http://www.youtube.com/user/languy99#p/u/0/5Z7GSXNXmLk-
6.18

Perhaps Symantec should consider dealing with such matters rather than publishing all sorts of tests to bash other companies.

Thanks

Originally Posted by EliteKiller

At least Symantec isn't afraid to have their products tested unlike some other well known vendors.

Yes , it seems this thread is not for accusing Symantec for being bad protector but for accusing it for making others look bad .

Even if you don't approve of Dennis Labs you should keep in mind that Symantec scores well on AV-test & AV-comparatives.

and not only . By the way , I haven't seen a single review where Symantec scores bad/low , have you

Symantec has always had good/very good lab.test and real-world results. This is not valid for other companies because some have had good results recently , some have had good results in the past , some have good results in tests made by "independent" labs but poor from other practial tests (e.g. is Avast - I can't understand how AV-C gives this program so high when in my whole life practic it has always been and still is the worst AV) . Anyway , to summarize :

Even if you don't approve of Dennis Labs you should keep in mind that Symantec scores well on AV-test & AV-comparatives.

- don't forget that This is what actually matters

[Tweakie]

There was another independant test recently with the same kind of methodology. It was performed by nsslabs and discussed in these threads:
http://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?t=253974
http://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?t=254058

It is interesting to compare the results (not in terms of percentage, but in terms of ranking/relative protection):

Nsslabs:
- Trend Micro (96,4%)
- Kaspersky (87,8%)
- Norton (81,8%)
- McAfee (81,6%)
- AVG (73,3%)
- Panda (72,0%)

Dennis lab:
- Norton (100%)
- Trend Micro (95%)
- Kaspersky (95%)
- AVG (75%)
- McAfee (70%)
- Panda (45%)

To summarize: Kaspersky and Trend score well in both tests, Panda scores relatively low in both tests, Norton scores better in Norton's paid test and McAfee scores lower in Norton's paid test. So I thonk we can at least draw some conclusions about Trend, Kaspersy and Panda results.

Nsslabs concluded about the importance of "in the cloud"/"reputation based" technology, which improved the performance of Trend and McAffee by 23% and 8% respectively. It is also worth to note that they used more than 3000 website to perform their test - which looks slightly more reliable than the 40 samples presented in this test...

Note for Trjam: in nsslabs, Eset got the lowest results of all tested products (67,9%). Other products tested were Norman (81,2%) and F-secure (80,0%).

[Fly]

I think there are more things wrong than right with this test.

The numbers simply are not credible. Avira performing so poorly, for example.

Windows XP SP2, IE 6, with no security updates ! If I recall correctly, SP2 contains an outdated version of Java. And an out of date Flash player and Acrobat Reader are mentioned in the test !

With a setup like that, it´s hard to not get infected !
You shouldn´t expect an AV to protect you on a system with so many vulnerabilities. This issue alone invalidates the test IMO.
There is just no AV that can protect a completely stupid user.
Why not test Windows XP with SP1 ?

Anyway, this is a Symantec sponsored test. That alone is good enough to dismiss it.

[IBK]

Originally Posted by Fly

Windows XP SP2, IE 6, with no security updates ! If I recall correctly, SP2 contains an outdated version of Java. And an out of date Flash player and Acrobat Reader are mentioned in the test !

according to some internet statistics (but they vary a lot), v6 of IE is still one of the most used versions of IE . beside that, using not-up-to-date software may make sense in such a test, as it tries to evaluate the security provided by the av software (also for the non-security-aware users) against drive-by-downloads/exploits. most av vendors would suggest such a scenario, but probably not all of them.

[Fly]

Originally Posted by IBK

according to some internet statistics (but they vary a lot), v6 of IE is still one of the most used versions of IE . beside that, using not-up-to-date software may make sense in such a test, as it tries to evaluate the security provided by the av software (also for the non-security-aware users) against drive-by-downloads/exploits. most av vendors would suggest such a scenario, but probably not all of them.

That´s one way of thinking. But how many people have SP2 without ANY new security patches ?

True, most people don´t patch all their software, but they do get Windows or Micosoft updates. Most of them. I hope.
SP2 without Windows or MS updates is a system full of holes, I can´t see how a vendor can protect such a system properly.
In this regard, it is not a ´real world´ test.

And SP2 includes an old version of Java. I´m not sure why people have Java on their systems, I´ve never needed it.

[IBK]

Originally Posted by Fly

I´m not sure why people have Java on their systems, I´ve never needed it.

I need/use Java every day.

[Fly]

Originally Posted by IBK

I need/use Java every day.

Care to elaborate why ?

[Fajo]

Originally Posted by Fly

That´s one way of thinking. But how many people have SP2 without ANY new security patches ?

True, most people don´t patch all their software, but they do get Windows or Micosoft updates. Most of them. I hope.
SP2 without Windows or MS updates is a system full of holes, I can´t see how a vendor can protect such a system properly.
In this regard, it is not a ´real world´ test.

And SP2 includes an old version of Java. I´m not sure why people have Java on their systems, I´ve never needed it.

I remember something about Microsoft being sued by Sun Micro systems and not allowed to package java on there OS or any Service pack after that. So how does a service pack include this ? just out of curiosity.

[ambient_88]

Originally Posted by Fly

And SP2 includes an old version of Java. I´m not sure why people have Java on their systems, I´ve never needed it.

Believe it or not, Java is one of the most used programming language in the world, so there are a lot of applications that are written in Java. Consequently, in order to run those applications, Java needs to be installed. I have JDK installed because my CS course uses Java along with other programming languages.

[steve1955]

Originally Posted by Fajo

Those test seem well. Screwed up! lol. And quite frankly it coming directly from Symantec Seems like the tests were to make sure symantec detected it first. In other words if norton missed a site or a Trojan it was simply removed from the test. We all know no AV is perfect and will NOT score 100% on a test unless its rigged or very very one sided.

just because a test is run on behalf of any company does not mean the test itself is rigged:-you're jumping to conclusions and possibly making false allegations,Norton has done very well in other tests not connected to them in any way,I don't use Norton but have tried the latest nis 2010 and it is a very good product ,one which i will consider when my current subscription runs out:-just because you or I don't like results in any test doesn't automatically mean that test is flawed it most probably means it goes against our pre-conceptions

[Fajo]

Originally Posted by steve1955

just because a test is run on behalf of any company does not mean the test itself is rigged:-you're jumping to conclusions and possibly making false allegations,Norton has done very well in other tests not connected to them in any way,I don't use Norton but have tried the latest nis 2010 and it is a very good product ,one which i will consider when my current subscription runs out:-just because you or I don't like results in any test doesn't automatically mean that test is flawed it most probably means it goes against our pre-conceptions

Learn to read all post before you quote there is a better explanation of what I ment down below.


Also has nothing to do with jumping to conclusions. This test would of NEVER been published if Norton did badly in it or another vendor beat them out. That's the disadvantage to having a Paid by Vendor tests. THEY control what happens and how the test is ran or if the test is even shown. learn to read up before you accuse me of anything.

Trust me they are not going to go find a bunch of sites that NORTON does not detect then publish the results.

[steve1955]

Originally Posted by Fajo

Learn to read all post before you quote there is a better explanation of what I ment down below.


Also has nothing to do with jumping to conclusions. This test would of NEVER been published if Norton did badly in it or another vendor beat them out. That's the disadvantage to having a Paid by Vendor tests. THEY control what happens and how the test is ran or if the test is even shown. learn to read up before you accuse me of anything.

Trust me they are not going to go find a bunch of sites that NORTON does not detect then publish the results.

you start off by saying the test is flawed and go on to say that if a website or trojan was missed by nis it was excluded from the results:-where did you get that info from??is that not jumping to conclusions??

[harlan4096]

Originally Posted by steve1955

you start off by saying the test is flawed and go on to say that if a websie or trojan was missed by nis it was excluded from the results:-where did you get that info from??is that not jumping to conclusions??

I think He means They selected 40 WebSites for the test making sure Norton would detect all of them ... quite suspicious that in none of them Norton had problems and all the others competitors did ...

Regards.

[Zombini]

The thread is a clear demonstration of how bad the state of affairs is with AV testing in general. There is an established pecking order of who is 1st, 2nd , last etc , based on completely useless flat file scanning from Andreas Marx, and Andreas Clementi and if any test comes out with different results, the test must be BS.

Sad, very sad.

These Andreas tests are based on comparatively old tests, as old as 1 day to even 1 week AFTER they have been received. You seriously think that Avira has 99.9999 percent detection of all malware. BS!!!

The tests from Dennis labs are real world, with very fresh threats.

[Zombini]

Originally Posted by harlan4096

I think He means They selected 40 WebSites for the test making sure Norton would detect all of them ... quite suspicious that in none of them Norton had problems and all the others competitors did ...

Regards.

Another baseless comment. Norton has invested 10 years in Intrusion Prevention and Browser Protection technologies that detect malicious content IN THE NETWORK STREAM before it hits the disk. You should not be surprised that it is able to block sites BASED ON CONTENT, NOT BASED ON URL BLOCKING, before it even hits the disk.

[Zombini]

Before anyone posts further, read the testing methodology in the report, not just the results . Looks like pbust is the only one that has done so and has some valid questions.

[Zombini]

Originally Posted by Tweakie

Note for Trjam: in nsslabs, Eset got the lowest results of all tested products (67,9%). Other products tested were Norman (81,2%) and F-secure (80,0%).

Even though I am dont use Eset anymore, I am a little surprised that they did so badly on this test. They used to be very good in 0-day protection in the 2.7 version. What happened

[Kees1958]

Ahh well,

As long as Pbust's questions are not answered and they would be kind enough to give Panda a second test with the cloud enabled, I am not giving it any value.

[steve1955]

In a way it is a good thing that there is so much disagreement as to which are the best products:-can you imagine what a field day(days!) the malware writers would have if we all used the same product which is sure to have some weakness that could be targeted!