Cascadia Labs and Secunia found that NIS 2009 is best...

but alot of AV's offer something the others dont have.

so, its nothing special.

they should still be doing alot more.....

 

Totally agree look for the money and resources that Symantec has ... they must be on top , perhabs they are using all the resources with marketing ? just joking.

Btw i dont like big companies who simple buy the competition.
About Dr web hummm I am really a fan of Igor Daniloff and i wish all the best to his products and to him , they are very solide and really "does the job".


About Kaspersky ... guys I am not a fan boy but this company really bring new technological advancements in the antivirus market that others companies copied. Self Defense , HIPS , Behavior Block , Advanced Desinfection and many another things. ( I am not saying that kaspersky made this , but was the first to bring and adaptade this to simple antivirus solutions. Remember Kaspersky 6.0 ?

And for the test ... Antivirus nowdays are complex softwares with layered security ( HIPS , Behavior Block , Dynamic Heuristics , Emulators , Script Blocker , Web Scanners ) these products ( Norton except) failed in the test but in the real world could saved the user in the end.

 

Thats right, but the bottom line is it isn't static and will obviously be updated, much like Symantec update their generic detections to keep up with the latest threats.

In the end, an AV is bypassable whichever way you look at it, and whichever software you choose. Its just a case of how well your software can react when it does encounter a new "threat" which it may or may not know about in signature mode. It is good that we have got a variety of vendors because each is striving to create new technologies to fight malware, and each brings something new to the table..which in the end can only benefit the end user.

 

Yes, Symantec is reputable software security making and selling reliable products, but....

I am so over "best" no matter who it comes from...so glad Wilders has a policy on this now (not saying this topic should be closed).

I am sure NIS 2009 is good too. I have and would not hesitate to use it. I just shop around for my security software.

Large Ad. budgets have little effect on me. Better to spend money on the research to produce a better product, but that is just me.

As economy gets tight look for some good deals...stay tuned.

 

I assume Kaspersky 6.0 was released for the 2007 year. In that case, Norton issued a free SONAR add-on for their consumer products; a form of HIPS. As for Self-Defense, I believe that the phrase was coined to make it stand out; all programs employ some form of self-defense, such as making files read-only, etc. etc.

A) Your basis is ... ?
B) I don't think that I would back a test I knew I would fail ... I wouldn't take the SAT w/o a calculator ...

 

Wrong Kaspersky 6.0 beta was in 2005 , official released in the beggining of 2006 , You didnt get the point , and I know about SONAR and Norton in fact my father and mother use in their computer and i tested for two months in my computer the 2009 version.

Kaspersky Self Defense was and is now much more powerful than simple making files ready-only , and a big no , not all products now have powerful Self Defense, so lets talk about in the beggining of 2006?

I am not a Kaspersky user but i see the progress that this companie made

 

Good point. Kaspersky and Norton must be leading in innovation ...

And Norton 2008, and possibility earlier, include product tamper protection. Man, Norton keeps a history of unauthorized access ...

 

Read this:

http://www.viruslist.com/en/weblog?weblogid=208187584

Look that that. Kaspersky admited defeat; they admited their product was not designed to detect exploits. Well, there's always an easy way out. And there's also a die hard way ...

http://research.pandasecurity.com/archive/Exploits-vs-Antivirus-_2D00_-The-Last-Stand.aspx

However, Kaspersky's reply lacks the numbers.

They gave up on detection of exploits. How many exploits can it block? At least Panda reported some numbers, in spite of the fact that it was based on in-house testing.

Kaspersky includes a vulnerablity scanner. Stop reinventing the wheel; Secunia already has one, PSI, and Secunia has an established history of detection exploits. Looks like they threw that in as a last-ditch effort to stop the sinking.

Anyways, combine Norton's winning score from the Secunia test, regular patching, and its behavioral analysis, and you have a winning combo.

 

Kaspersky is the only decent suite it was tested against and must have been used with default settings? If they tested against 20$ software like SandboxIE, GeSWall, Defensewall, etc... Or even against free Comodo... heh

 

Not would be different, the test was about detection and not protection. In my opinion these applications in real word offer much more protection than superb antivirus

 

It's interesting Comodo Internet Security wasn't in those tests. Maybe next time.

Goodluck to Symantec.

Cheers,
Josh

 

Hi n best wishes,

But whats so interresting about it?

 

Well in basically every EULA you have to obtain permission to test a product. Maybe Comodo declined or was never contacted ...