NIS 2010 PCMag.com review

Dude that is so true.

 

Ditto.

 

Its funny the way all the security apps converge in the 2010 releases.
The layout of NIS 2010 GUI is a lot like KIS 2010 , in how it splits up threats.

I must say it looks like a very good app. Esp like the tech support angle ..

 

Well, I still trust Kaspersky and Avira more for the latest threats. The new download protection in NIS is interesting, but I don't think I'll use NIS.

 

Starting from its "well known" reviewer I don't trust ANYTHING that comes from this magazine. But if you (and others) do.....well, God bless you all.

I personally found funny how Norton fanboys get so heated when someone tries to point its fingers at their totally biased "reviews".

No, i'm not joking at all.

 

I am one of those that had bad experiences with pre-2009 Norton products. I understand things change, but for me it is a matter of principle. For me it was kinda like buying a new car from company a that turned out to be a lemon, yeah for the most part company a makes really fine cars nowadays, but I'll never buy from them again.

 

yup,you did.well it seems i don't wanna be labeled a Norton fanboy or PcMag's fanboy...
But truth is i find their review a decent indicator for selecting a product....anyway to each his own...

 

I don't particularly trust the reviews of this magazine, but try to correlate what they say with the general consensus here and elsewhere bearing in mind that every system is different.

It seems the current version of NIS is running much better than previous incarnations; if the userbase were still complaining generally then I think we'd have more reason to moan about this magazine review.

 

I don't get this love fest for Symantec's product considering the abysmal performance shown by A-V comparitives and by the Virus Bulleting RAP tests.

http://www.virusbtn.com/vb100/rap-index.xml

 

.
The point is not to "trust" the review. The point is to actually read it along with other reviews and try to evaluate the product for yourself. The best way is to install the trial-ware so you can see how it actually works on your system. It's not about being a "fanboy". It's about taking a logical approach.

 

I believe they used the corporate edition of Symantec's antivirus, which doesn't include the latest technologies of their consumer counterpart. Also, the latest AV-Comparative report is not out yet, and if you're talking about the Feb 2009 results, then Symantec (using the Norton product line) did fairly well. The overall percentage, however, is indeed quite low (~80%).

 

I give no weight to "editor choice" or other awards, those are always given by the marketing department, no objection there. But the review itself was pretty much detailed, very infomational about the technology inside the product(and not just NIS, but other AV review are very informative too about how they do things), all the methodology explained and they had no trouble naming other products that delivered better result than NIS in some category.

I'm still waiting for what you found so bad in it. What was false, please do tell. You haven't said a thing bout that so far.

As for the fanboy comment, I noticed it's the usual exit someone takes when he has no good argumentation and try to save face.

 

Poor malware detection rates

I did try their 2009 AV-only version months ago and, even though I agree it has had a big improvement regarding to the 'lightness' of the program compared to previous versions, its detection capabilities are still poor the same as its older heavy brothers. From time to time, I perform my own 'minitests' against new AV versions of the most popular brands.

Definitely Norton still su**s in this department and probably always will

(virusbtn.com posts above, anyone?)

 

In my opinion, Symantec's detection rates are just fine. Sure, they may not be the highest, but they aren't the lowest either. As the latest AV-Comparatives have shown, they are right their at the top when it comes to reactive detections.

 

And yet, the latest version seems to have done well against AV-C's sample set of over 1.5m malwares by detecting overall at 98.4%.

 

Tests aren't everything; each person has their own experiences to go by. I would have dropped my AV already after AV-C if I thought it was the only indicator of stopping the newest malware.

 

That is true; however, the guy was arguing about poor detection rates, not the overall effectiveness of the said security software.

 

He didn't dispute the tests; he was just saying he doesn't believe the AV is that effective.

 

PCMag rated Norton Internet Security two stars one time. Neil J. Rubenking reviewed it.

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,1829254,00.asp

And another time:

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,1650544,00.asp

 

Then again I also don't understand what Mcafee (98.7%) is doing there But well, good luck for all of you that are using the Norton products then.

As far as I am concerned, I only trust my only experience.

 

If it's anything like their NAV 2010 product, it's a huge improvement over their mid 200x (2004 - 2006?) versions. One thing I didn't like with my av trial were the very attempts to phone home very early during the install procedure, although it may have been nothing serious; perhaps just to look for updates? Still, there was no option offered for this during the install.

 

Symantec has never had poor detection rates . Where have you seen extremely/badly infected computer with Norton/SAV running ? Poor detection rates means that their protducts would miss quite a lot of samples (mostly such that make obvious problems and in-the-wild).

In my experience , they are a bit slow in additing signature detection for new variants of rogue applications . Perhaps it is because of their policy about spyware/adware detection. However , they are pretty fast with some other samples (trojans/backdoors/worms) .

With Insight and SONAR2 these problems would be set to minimum, I think.

 

Hi all,

It loos like not everybody raves about Norton Internet Security 2010.

Please, read this preview by remove-malware.com and you'll see NIS 2010 fared poor against rogue “antivirus” : http://remove-malware.com/antimalwa...ernet-security-2010-and-rogue-antivirus-fail/


I know there are many other AV's that also fail detecting these kind of threats but for a product that is nearly perfect like PCmag's reviewer wrote, this is quite disappointing.

Regards,

Carlos

 

What strikes me most (I've read that post by Matt previously as I check his website from time to time) is that the software seems to not really miss the rogues, but malfunction (!). If you read the post carefully, Norton has detected those rogues as "bad", but still let them run!

 

I guess this is by design. Symantec probably thinks that when a user learns that a file is untrusted, they would not run it.