FWIW: PC Mag Selects Norton Internet Security as Editor's Choice 2011

Full article here:

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2369749,00.asp


Rankings Chart here:

http://www.pcmag.com/image_popup/0,1871,iid=276064,00.asp

 

Whenever I read a thread of PC Mag I always have a gut feeling that somewhere there is always a discussion of Norton being the best

 

PC Mag Selects Norton Internet Security as Editor's Choice 2011

I wonder why...

 

Well Mr Rubiking certainly is consistent and I'm sure forum members will have there own views on whether advertising revenue influences results.

However what can't be denied is he uses a methodology that is documented and is open about how he/PC Mag scores. It's a little surprising to me that he/PC Mag gets so heavily criticised when any half-assed wannabe with a VM and video capabilities can post a review on youtube that is treated by some as gospel.

Makes me wonder if it was a different product coming out on top whether it would cause the same backlash.

As an aside I think he might actually be right this time. Download Insight and Sonar improvements in 2011 version (while somewhat sensitive) are extemely good enhancements to what was a decent product anyway.

Cheers

 

norton/symantec does have a good reputation for providing very few false positives.
their fault used to be heavy cpu usage, but that fault has been recently remedied.
i occasionally use their online scan. it used to be buggy, but that is no longer the case, it has worked flawlessly for the last year.

 

I've always wondered why people make such a big fuss (for the lack of a more appropriate word) as to what any tech mag rates as No.1, etc etc

If you find the review/rating unfavorable/biased for whatever logical or emotional reasons/arguments, so be it then. I'm assuming that you've already decided what's best for you, seeing the knowledge and experience you guys have with different products, right? How does this affect your deep-rooted choice?

After all, a review is nothing more than a review. A selection or endorsement by any parties is also the exact same thing as what it means: a 'selection' by that party. It's based on several different criteria appropriate to the one that makes the selection...and which may inadvertently differ from person to person. Love it or hate it: it's just a reading material.

 

The problem with relying on scanners is that they require a known signature in order to flag malware.

A good example from last Monday - in checking my Yahoo Mail which uses Norton AV:



I was able to download the attachment and the Facebook-named executable in the Zip file was caught by just one vendor
when uploading to an online scanning site. I was lucky in getting this email on the day (11/29) that the malware was distributed in the wild.

One day later I opened the same email...



... and most other vendors also had a signature for it.

While you can argue that one shouldn't open attachments, I've discovered in conversations with people that they become complacent knowing that their email service has an AV scanner, and would be likely to be willing to open an attachment that the scanner did not flag.

In this case, there was a text file included which detailed the (bogus) logins mentioned in the email. Would it fool any regular at Wilders? Probably not, but that's not the target of cybercriminals, as we all know!

----
rich

 

...FB IPSecure with is produced by a us, to lock untrasted contections....

Looks a bit off though.

 

This is a perfect example showing how difficult it is for AVs to detect new malware, but also how most of them had a signature ready "one day later". If one can't rely on AVs for new malware, they certainly serve a purpose to identify existing one, and quite frankly most companies are good in this scenario.

 

Shocking.

 

While I think Norton Internet Security 2011 is one of the best security solutions ever made, the quality of that PC Mag review/article is just poor.

 

The gap betweem whomever is rated best and whomever comes in last, could be measured by a 12 inch ruler.

The problem here is, we use 100 foot tape measure.

 

PC Mag reviews are geared towards novice users which are the largest group on the web. There is no doubt that Norton is best for novice users but most users here on Wilder's are advanced users. Novice users rarely visit help forums, they are too busy doing things on the web that gets them into trouble with malware, whereas advanced users know better. No AV can detect everything but Norton has did so much improves the last few years not only in detection rates but also low on system resources. So I believe Norton is the best opinion for novice users who can afford it, but advanced users like myself can get by just fine with a free AV solution like Avast.

I haven't got an infection in about 6 or 7 years using Avast Free.

Thanks.