How is NORMAN when compared to the likes of KAV, McAFFE or NOD32?

Discussion in 'other anti-virus software' started by tempnexus, Dec 14, 2004.

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

    tempnexus Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2003
    Posts:
    280
    In terms of detection and performance? And it's "sandbox" mode?
     
  2. se7engreen

    se7engreen Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2004
    Posts:
    369
    Location:
    USA
    When I trialed Norman, it seemed to me that the heuristics (sandbox) are strong but slow and only available on-demand. The definitions seemed weak against some more common trojans. Resource usage was on the high side.

    It's been a while since I tried Norman, but thats what I remember.
     
  3. Randy_Bell

    Randy_Bell Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 24, 2002
    Posts:
    3,004
    Location:
    Santa Clara, CA
    Norman has a very good record with Virus Bulletin:
    Result summary: 25 passes / 11 fails
    http://www.virusbtn.com/vb100/archives/products.xml?norman.xml

    The sandbox technology often provides pre-emptive detection before signatures are released, similar to NOD32's AH performance ..

    So bottom line, Norman Virus Control is a quite decent AV, in my opinion. ;)
     
  4. tazdevl

    tazdevl Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 17, 2004
    Posts:
    837
    Location:
    AZ, USA
  5. Blackcat

    Blackcat Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2002
    Posts:
    4,010
    Location:
    Christchurch, UK
    Norman Virus Control is good at ITW virus detection. But not so good in detecting zoo viruses.

    It has a very weak unpacking engine and relatively poor trojan detection as suggested by these results; http://boardadmin.bo.funpic.de/viewtopic.php?t=46&sid=320bba14cc88f3e444cb56c729b6c76e

    Therefore, overall malware detection is probably not yet on par with the likes of KAV, McAfee or NOD.

    But it is rapidly improving and in my trials, the stability of the program is very good and the RTM had no negligible effect on system performance.

    The on-demand scanner on my systems was, however, very slow.

    Overall, if you supplement NVC with a good Antitrojan program you will have good first line of defense.

    I know Technodrome is a licensed holder of NVC, so maybe he will pop in and give his valuable opinion here.
     
  6. Randy_Bell

    Randy_Bell Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 24, 2002
    Posts:
    3,004
    Location:
    Santa Clara, CA
    On the other hand, if it had an abysmal VB100% success record, that would not give me much confidence in the product. I've never used it myself so, barring testimony from folks like Technodrome who actually own the program, I have to go on what evidence is available. ;)
     
  7. bellgamin

    bellgamin Very Frequent Poster

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2002
    Posts:
    5,648
    Location:
    Hawaii
    I'm surprised nobody mentioned Norman's high price relative to the prices of other AVs which are equal to or better than Norman in terms of effectiveness.
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.