Dennis Technology Labs: PC Anti-Virus Protection 2011

A new anti-malware comparative report, conducted by Dennis Technology Labs, has been issued: PC Anti-Virus Protection 2011.

 

Only 40 samples

Norton scored 100%, I wonder why Symantec always score 100% 3 of 3 when is being tested by Dennis Technology Labs (sponsored and created by symantec).

Anyway interesting test to see what the other did.

I have tested norton 2011beta and 2010 with "0day" malware from MDL and didn't stop everything, I wonder where Dennis Technology Labs get the samples.

@Pleonasm: I think that is not alowed to link directly to the pdf, but I'm not sure, at least with AVC is not alowed.

 

In AV Comparaatives Dynamic full product test Norton was one of the top two. Evidently it still is.
Regards,
Jerry

 

Thanks for the cautionary note. However, Symantec links directly to the PDF of the report (see here) -- thus I assume it is an acceptable practice with Dennis Technology Labs.

 

Any product can be perfect with some hand picked samples. I guarantee as a license holder of Norton that it is far from perfect on false positives. As a matter of fact, it is the reason it is not currently installed on any of my machines. Not only a higher number of false positives than any product I have used, but the fact the it auto deletes them makes it infuriating.

 

rock on norton
no matter what some say , ur doing great and everyone who have actually installed and use would know it

this is 5th test proving it and some people doubt all of these cause norton scoring well..
then why didnt anyone commented on eset,kaspersky also doing very well .. that should be false too

 

What does that have to do with this test?

 

I think that is a restriction from AVC, not Wilders.

"Please link only to our main site www.av-comparatives.org.
We do not allow to host our test reports/documents on other sites without our permission.
If you find anything on other sites, please inform the forum/site admin to remove it."

 

Because all the five test have been paid by Norton, we have to celebrate with Norton that they spend all this money for tests

 

Avira is not showing up so well these days. I admit some degree of disappointment.

I am confident that AV Comparatives is objective, and reports the facts. I guess Norton haters are blinded by the name. Oh well.

Regards,
Jerry

 

Better than no tests - and they got third parties to test, rather than testing themselves.

 

Yes , because they have money for everything . The finanical condition of a given security company represents how good it will be.

I don't know and can't understand why you are so much against Symantec and everything they do . They had a bad period as we all have but their detection/protection rate has always been very high - during all of the previous years.

If you have something against the tests , speak against them . Your way of posting is not a critisism againts test organisations but against the winner.

 

Where I said that Norton is bad? or something bad about Norton?

I just inform that all the test have been sponsored by Norton, something that is good to know. If you are thinking that Norton cheated is not my problem.

Nobody has spoken against Norton only you.

 

There is no doubt that Norton isn't doing well, but other tests have shown that it isn't perfect (like it has always been in Dennis tests).

I'm not really sure about Dennis though, while they're sponsored by Norton their tests replicate the results of other, larger tests from AV-Comparatives and AV-Test.

I disagree, while it's true in this test (Norton and Kaspersky) there are many smaller companies which also have effective products, but they've just been never tested. For example Online Armor and Comodo.

 

FYI -- All of the (unwarranted and unwise) arguments that Symantec’s funding of the research conducted independently by Dennis Technology Labs influenced the test results have already been made (and refuted, in my opinion) in this thread.

 

BTW I dont understand one thing, this test and the AVtest about real time detection are not redundant?

Pay two times for the same?

 

When two separate and independent sources reach similar conclusions, then the reliability of (and confidence in) those conclusions is heightened.

 

I still do not get it as to why people cannot understand that Norton is now a good product.

Its Sonar and Download Insight make it do wonders in dynamic tests and this good performance is reflected not only in Dennis Technology Labs tests but also in tests conducted by AV-C and AV Test.

So to conclude, Norton is definitely not perfect but it certainly does not need to publish fake tests to show its real world capabilities as facts already speak for themselves.

 

Dennis Technology Labs, independent?

 

Even if it was sponsored by Symantec, i don't find results biased at all. I am somehow surprised to see NOD32 up there but so i'm surprised with avast! 5. Kaspersky is where i expected it to be and Norton is far from what ppl were used to know it back in 2008 and back...

 

When I said “two separate and independent sources,” I was referring to the fact that (1) Dennis Technology Labs is separate and independent from (2) AV-Test. When you have these two sources performing their own tests and both sets of results point to similar conclusions, then those conclusions have considerably more certainty and credibility.

In addition, both (1) Dennis Technology Labs as well as (2) AV-Test are separate and independent from (3) Symantec - i.e., neither controls the other. If there is any reason to believe otherwise, then please do elaborate.

 

Do something like this:


Test norton 2011 with "0day" malware even from MDL.

And then tell me where the hell DTL got the samples that made a 100% 40/40 for Norton. If any normal dude with malware from MDL can easily find some files not detected by Norton, where a "professional" testing group like DTL get the samples?

 

I tested 2011 beta 5+ times (close to 100 links), and never got anything past it. So unless the final has taken a big step back, it is pretty solid with 0 day threats.

 

Please see my quote in the other thread:

"I can take 10 zero day malware samples and easily see how NIS2011 blocked them all. And then I can take another 10. And another 10. Right up to the point were I have 124 fresh zero say samples, all released between the 5th and the 8th, and still nothing gets through (bear in mind I'm not suggesting that NIS is inpenetrable). What's your point?

Can I ask you a question, have you used the final version of NIS2011, ever? Or did you just make up your statement without using it? Because getting NIS not to score 100%, whilst not impossible, is definitely hard. Do you have some non-anecdotal evidence? Maybe some samples that bypass it?

I can share my 124 samples with you if you like, and you can retest them, if you doubt my words. Coming to criticise on anecdotal evidence is quite easy. Let's see you back up your words with facts."

You got "told".

 

Malwaredomainlist is not the only source of malware. If you test only against samples from this site , you are making a big mistake.