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

Discussion in 'other anti-malware software' started by hawki, Dec 2, 2010.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. hawki

    hawki Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2008
    Posts:
    1,957
    Location:
    DC Metro Area
  2. icr

    icr Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2008
    Posts:
    1,588
    Location:
    Mumbai
    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:argh:
     
  3. PJC

    PJC Very Frequent Poster

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Posts:
    2,959
    Location:
    Internet
    PC Mag Selects Norton Internet Security as Editor's Choice 2011

    I wonder why...:D:D:D
     
  4. chris1341

    chris1341 Guest

    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
     
  5. ejames82

    ejames82 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2007
    Posts:
    156
    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.
     
  6. safeguy

    safeguy Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2010
    Posts:
    1,718
    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.
     
  7. Sherlock_Holmes

    Sherlock_Holmes Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2010
    Posts:
    1,448
    Location:
    Mumbai
    :thumb:
     
  8. Rmus

    Rmus Exploit Analyst

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2005
    Posts:
    3,943
    Location:
    California
    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:

    yahoo_fb1.gif

    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...

    yahoo_fb2.gif

    ... 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
     
  9. Baserk

    Baserk Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2008
    Posts:
    1,317
    Location:
    AmstelodamUM
    ...FB IPSecure with is produced by a us, to lock untrasted contections....

    Looks a bit off though.
     
  10. Osaban

    Osaban Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2005
    Posts:
    4,222
    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.
     
  11. ALookingInView

    ALookingInView Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2009
    Posts:
    365
    Shocking.
     
  12. shadek

    shadek Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2008
    Posts:
    2,363
    Location:
    Sweden
    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.
     
  13. trjam

    trjam Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2006
    Posts:
    9,057
    Location:
    North Carolina
    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.
     
  14. littlebits

    littlebits Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2006
    Posts:
    262
    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.:)
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.