New Virus Bulletin VB100 Results - June 2007

I hope you're joking.

First, from the user's point of view, it doesn't matter whether the product doesn't detect the malware at all, and never did - or if the vendor removed the detection temporarily (or at least they claim so). He might get infected during that time, and that's all that counts.
Second, the deadline for VB100 tests is known in advance - so if somebody decides to remove a detection just before the test, he knows the risk (personally, I don't think it's such a tragedy to lose one VB100 aware, but some might have different attitude).

 

Hasn't it always been that way?

 

well, it probably wasn't removed without care, it's possible that the pdm was considered as a protection measure until the signatures were readded.

 

This is strange. I know for a fact AVG detects PUPs and spyware from both AVG and Ewido engines on-access. And the Anti-Spyware engine is always enabled by default in AVG Anti-Malware, don't know whether it applies for AVG Pro though.

 

IBK, why did Proland Protector Plus fail? And would you say that Proland woud be adecquate for Win 9x/ME systems with good hosts files and sufficient immunization with script blocking and good HIPS?

Dave

 

because it missed some itw samples on-demand and even more on-access (due incomplete coverage of file extensions). it also had two false positives.
i can not comment this product.

 

never heard of it here in the UK

anyway, june 2007?.... cmon, its nearly november.

i can barely remember yesterday, who cares about june?

 

Heh, how often does this happen. Everytime a good or thought to be good av does bad in some test people fight and try to find a way how it is biased. For example Norton used to have worser detections than avast and avg. People are still saying that today in comments based on old versions of norton. If they tested it today they would probably say the same thing. I bet when kaspersky makes its first wrong signature and deletes system files it will be " Oh it was only an accident", "was not kaspersky fault".

Yet when norton releases a new version it will be "Oh i am not touching that resource hogg" without even trying it. Will it ever change?

It is like now. Kaspersky has this chkdsk problem and barely anyone cares yet if an av like norton has high mem usage it is hated forever.

It is what is happening now with online armor and comodo. OA a company dedicated to firewalls releases a free version while a company comodo offers ssl certificates yet makes an amazing firewall. You have to think about what companies do what.

Kaspersky and online armor=Dedicated to 1 product
Symantec and comodo=Products that are completely different

Also now staff.

Comodo=Melih a ceo who handles more than a firewall yet answers in his own forum and answers to personal questions.

Tallemu=Mike Mash the owner who only has to care about the firewall and also answers in the forum.

Understand? Probably not as your only thinking about the product and not the company still.

Come on bring on the fan clubs to attack me. Midway help me!

Like here is a review by pcmag editor http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1759,2023974,00.asp He rates norton 2007 as a great piece of software yet most of the reviews are complaining about tech support and losing internet access. If any of those were regular problems than kill symantec but when more than 90% get it installed successfully why listen to one guy afer the other complaining about the same issue which is company specific and not product specific.

You see most people complain about mem usage and cpu usage yet the antivirus and firewall are solid and excellent. Remember not everyone has a old computer.

Look at the ratings of nis 08 on download.com and tell me most of them are even related to the core features. Half are registration problems and quarter of them are complaining about little features like parental controls. The little bit left are complaining about resource hog. I have little less than 512mb yet norton 08 ran fine. I admit norton 07 did cause performance issues but why is norton 08 still be complained about? Because of the past.

 

I agree. Every product has their good and bad. Some is paid more attention then others. We could debate the good and bad about all products till we are blue in the face. And from the look of things around here of late, we have.

 

Protector Plus is developed by an Indian company named Proland Software Private Limited. IMO it is worse than QuickHeal, and QuickHeal isn't so hot either (IMO).

 

Coolio, I do understand your frustration. I used to let it get to me but I am trying to not to anymore. I am trying to adopt a “live and let live” attitude towards it but sometimes it breaks down.

For example while I was in a Vista newsgroup I noticed a certain person would respond to people having problems with Norton on their Vista machine with what appeared to be a pre-typed answer (cut and paste). This answer would state that they should remove Norton via SymNRT (also this poster did not even know how to use this properly; he was implying using it as a replacement for Add/Remove which is a no-no). Then he would have a list of other AV’s to use; KAV, NOD32, AVG, etc and mentioned using other antispyware programs. The reasons I noticed that it was a cut and paste job was that he recommended Windows Defender (which everyone knows comes with Vista) and he made mention of Norton having a reputation of screwing up XP’s network stack (why would this apply to Vista?). It seems like this guy scans the newsgroup (and probably XP’s as well) looking for key words like Norton (or any other AV he doesn’t care for) and pounces on it with the cut and paste job.

I came across a post where a person was having a problem with his Vista Security Center not recognizing NIS ‘08. Of course this seems to be a common problem with Vista’s SecCenter as it does this with other AV’s and firewalls as well so I gave the poster instructions on how to reset the Repository in WMI.

Then here comes Mr. Anti-Norton with his cut and paste “get rid of Norton” reply. Incensed, I replied to this guy to stop bashing Norton and actually try to help the original poster. The replies I got back made me realize what mindset I was dealing with and any attempts at reasoning would be futile so I just let the matter drop.

I now know the cross long time Norton users have had to bear. I was once a Norton basher as well and now I see what it is like to be on the receiving end of it. I want to apologize to any Norton user I might have offended in the past.

Coolio, the only advice I can give you (and anyone else for that matter) is this: Who cares what Joe Blow thinks about it as long as you like and enjoy using the AV program. What really matters is what you think of it. I know it can be hard at times but just keep the faith!

 

Ok. Now i gotta put i heart mid40 in my sig

 

Well, just "I Heart Norton" will suffice

EDIT: I just realized how old this thread was, why was it resurrected? lol

 

Hello all,

Until I read the original post, I had never heard of AV product "eEye Blink Personal Edition". Does anyone know if this is a "crediable" product?

 

Yes Blink is a credible program and the parent company eEYE is also well known. If it was Vista compatable I would be useing it. I personally like all of the extra features (it is a full security suite). I used it for almost a year in XP before I went to Vista.

bigc

 

It is a very credible and solid program. I have been running it for several months now on one of my PC's and have no complaints with it and have had no infections....even when stopping by some...shall we say....questionable sites...but that was just for research purposes of course

 

Thanks IBK for your information. I'll adjust the extensions list accordingly.

Solo strikes me as being about 1/3 TeaTimer, 1/3 integrity checker, and 1/3 reactive AV. I find such programs fascinating for some reason.

Thanks again.

Dave

 

Mucho thanks to Hipgnosis and bigc73542 for their quick replies concerning the eEye AV product. I am tempted to give this product a try....

 

I've used blink personal for a while now and i find it very nice to use. Its based on norman av and at the moment its FREE!

http://www.eeye.com/html/consumer/products/blink/download/index.html

Enjoy!

 

Proland must be bad if it ranks below QuickHeal

 

I still think Eye is giving Blink away for like a year free.

 

Thanks for this link! I will give it a test.

 

That's why I love it! Infection is merely a state of mind ... ?

I could be VERY wrong!

Dave

 

I very highly recommend it. Blink Personal is free for a year, and is cheap at $25 US even if you choose to buy it.

I don't use any other security software now, other than SnoopFree, and haven't had a single problem since April, when I installed Blink. Plus, on this computer, it runs light. I wouldn't be without it.

 

I understand it is 'powered by Norman'? The AV-Comparatives results are not that good for Norman...