Whole Product Dynamic Test Overall Results August-November

Blacklisting encompasses any security technology that which aims to protect a host system by the means of blocking unknown, suspicious, suspected bad files, including:

* Signatures
* Heuristics/Behavior Monitoring
* HIPS that places emphasis on a blacklist rather than a whitelist
* Cloud database
* Firewall in blacklist mode

True whitelisting encompasses technologies that aim to establish a default deny environment, such as:

* Software Restriction Policies
* AppLocker
* Sandboxie
* ShadowDefender
* DefenseWall
* Comodo Defense+
* Anti-executables
* Webroot SecureAnywhere on whitelist mode (which they'll never test it on that setting as it is not default)
* Firewall in whitelist mode

I am not absolutely sure about how other supplemental, possibly whitelist technologies are incorporated into other suites as you mention, but I am sure of one thing - they are supplemental which is not ideal for security but generally considered better for non-advanced users.

 

Norton isn't that great at all. It's very easy to infect a system with it. I don't know, how it did so well in the AV-C real world tests. Sounds fishy to me. Ahem ahem.

 

All I was trying to say is whether Norton improved or not, which most people concur that they have, I wouldn't ever consider using them until they prove they can maintain that level of quality for as many years as they've been pure crap--which is many.

I remember the good old days of Norton...hey everyone this is my PC and it is capable of running Norton and...waiting 5 minutes for a browser to open. And heaven forbid having traces of Norton and control panel options for their Live Update utility after hours of uninstalling and further cleanup endeavors.

Norton's on my sh** list and they have a long road to redemption.

 

All AVs are easy to infect. I've heard this line for five years now.

 

I was using it last year with paid subscription, but it hugely disappointed me to the point where I had to dump it. It wasn't performing as per my standards.

 

That's not the point. I was referring to its performance in the AV-C real world test. It got compromised just 0.4% all year. That's quite fishy to me.

 

I see your point...

...I would just be prone to caution people changing their antivirus solution every year based on which one gets Advanced+ or the best detection ratio because I think any expert here can agree with me that those statistics are anything but static/constant.

Even if Norton is "the best" according to some tests for one or two years, that does not mean it is recommended to switch to it.

 

Test looks reasonable to me considering results from other testing companies.

 

Funny that Norton does so well when it's own value brand PC Tools lags behind. I understand that the two teams work independently, but given Norton's market positioning, they'd do well to put some more focus on the value proposition of PC Tools.

 

I put more faith in AVC than any test organization. I have used Norton for several years now with complete satisfaction. Although I have experienced several attempts at penetration none have succeeded. I admit that MBAM caught them.

But if Norton is so inadequate, either AVC test organization does not know what it is doing or is dishonest. I reject both of those possibilities, and am confident that I have one of the two or three best AVs available. Test after test in the whole product tests it comes out on or near the top.

Bash it if you will, but maybe I like it enough to make up for the bashing.

Regards,
Jerry

 

I do trust AV-Comparatives tests, and Norton is doing very well indeed. There is however one good reason for which I still wouldn't use it, namely without an internet connection its detection capability is not stellar. In my working environment this is a critical issue.

 

Are you sure about this? With PC Tools, cloud is mostly used only to verify FPs when using the comprehensive database (Note that PC Tools claims AV-comparatives' tests use the compact database and not the comprehensive database - the compact database relies on the cloud for detection as well as FP protection).

Given that it uses Norton's database, I'm not sure how that translates to the real world. Perhaps Norton without cloud is roughly equivalent to PC Tools.

 

you did not said this when F-Secure won BESt Av award last year.

People should get over their favorites list and stop being a fanboy.

I am not Norton's fanboy in any regard but I have tried almost every security product and i like Norton resource usage the best of all. It gives great detection too which makes it a good combo. Same for eset .

As for as your favorite, F-Secure is concerned , I better not say anything. Most people here are intelligent to understand it. Despite winning Best Av award , you would hardly find it in anyone's signature.

If people are not trusting AVC now, what is left to trust then ?

 

AV-Comparatives Whole Product Dynamic Tests - Overall Report 2nd half year 2011

The top six products in the AV-Comparatives "Whole Product Dynamic Real World Test” for November were Symantec, Bitdefender, Kaspersky, Qihoo, F-Secure and G DATA.
A high detection rate against real-world threats and a low number of false positives give Symantec Advanced+ certification in AV-Comparatives’ Whole-Product Dynamic Test.

Symantec has achieved a 99,5% protection rate and the best possible Advanced+ certification for its security product in the latest Whole-Product Dynamic Test carried out by AV-Comparatives.

Protection Rate (1898 Test Cases)
99,5% Symantec
99,4% Bitdefender
99,1% Kaspersky
98,9% Qihoo
98,8% Trend Micro

source: Level Computer Security blog

İf you want to see the complete results then go to dynamic-tests ~ Removed Direct PDF Link as per AV-Comparatives Request - See www.av-comparatives.org for the actual PDF ~ and view the monthly report.

 

Melih

 

i will still recommend avast to clients as a few percentage point losses does not mean alot. especially when nothing comes close to avast in terms of CPU usage and overall machine speed (IMO)

 

Nope, Comodo
But now I'm back to Norton, I don't like to stick to any product for too long.

 

Eset

 

Oh, Eset is dead still version 5.
There have to much buggs and nobody fix them.
Good job Norton

 

Mate, I'm not a F-Secure fan boy at all. I'm just a subscriber as I was with Symantec. If just like Symantec, F-Secure disappoints me in any aspect, I won't think twice before dumping it.

Please, don't get emotional for nothing. This is exactly what being a "fan boy" or simply obsession - whichever way you want to put it.

I was just being critical of the fact that it's not that great as the AV-C reports are showing it to be. That doesn't mean I don't trust AV-C any more. Sounds fishy just. And that's just an opinion. Try to respect other people's opinion too besides yours.

P.S. Moreover, my signature isn't promoting F-Secure in anyway whatsoever unlike yours. Still, I'm a fan boy in your eyes.

 

I respect everyone's opinion. Dont want to go in any argument.

Lol, I am called a Noton's fanboy . I remember a time when I was called Norton's Hateboy in 2006.

Dude, U think I would be emotional for a Virtual Software


Anyways , what is surprising this year is to see Trend Micro on Top 5 List In Dynamic Detection. Great Comeback. It needs improvement in Removal though.

 

I hope not.

 

Avast disappoint me.
I never expect such results for Avast.
Fortunately I only use Avast AV with another hips & firewall.
I think that is so better than we only use Avast products.

 

@Sher Is your experience significant or is it the past experience of one individual of many millions?

 

It might not be significant to you or others for that matter, but it surely is significant in my own eyes. And I'm here to voice my opinion. Like it or not.

Cheers.