Norton Internet Security 2009

Discussion in 'other anti-virus software' started by swisscoms, Sep 11, 2008.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Halo326

    Halo326 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2008
    Posts:
    106
    Can you show us these tests. Back up what you say? Even the video review of NAV 2008 did great. Watch it yourself. If you look at AV Comparitives August 2007 you will see Norton once again beating F-Secure. Also in the Nov 07 test Norton beats F-Secure. Also in Feb 08 Norton beats F-Secure again. Also in May 08 Norton beats F-Secure. And now once again in Sept 08 Norton beats F-Secure.........shall IO keep going.

    http://remove-malware.com/anti-malware-reviews/norton-antivirus-2008-review/

    Here is another test where Norton scored 98.7. F-Secure got 99.2. Thats only a margin of .5%.............wow. Is that what you have to go on.

    http://www.virusbtn.com/news/2008/09_02
     
    Last edited: Sep 19, 2008
  2. Fajo

    Fajo Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2008
    Posts:
    1,814
    aye topic closed nothing but bashing. and not one shred of evidence to back it up. :cautious:
     
  3. Halo326

    Halo326 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2008
    Posts:
    106
    Thanks Fajo.................
     
  4. mvdu

    mvdu Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2003
    Posts:
    1,166
    Location:
    PA
    Well, I tend to use personal experience a lot too (every one is different,) and I chose a couple AVs I own licenses for over Norton. That doesn't mean that Norton hasn't improved, though. It detects well.

    Everyone just use the AV you are comfortable with and don't worry too much about posts to the contrary.
     
  5. Halo326

    Halo326 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2008
    Posts:
    106
    I am in the US and according to this chart the US has more threats then Brazil.............so where are your facts tiagozt.

    http://www.threatexpert.com/
     
  6. mvdu

    mvdu Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2003
    Posts:
    1,166
    Location:
    PA
    Halo: tiagozt might not be responding. He said the topic was closed for him. It's better if we just discuss Norton without his A vs. B talk anyway. He'll use what he wants anyway - everyone will, in fact. :)
     
  7. Halo326

    Halo326 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2008
    Posts:
    106
    True but don't come into a thread and bash unless you can back it up. All I did was back up my finds and prove tiagozt. When a lawyer pleads his case does he never not bring the evidence.............:doubt:
     
  8. mvdu

    mvdu Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2003
    Posts:
    1,166
    Location:
    PA
    Well, to say Norton has POOR detection does need more backing up. I have not experienced POOR detection from them - in fact NIS 2009 was a little better even though I chose not to use it. I wonder if he can show more though without this going to the time out room again, though. :eek:
     
  9. Halo326

    Halo326 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2008
    Posts:
    106
  10. mvdu

    mvdu Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2003
    Posts:
    1,166
    Location:
    PA
    I'm Matt.. you mean me? :D

    Just kidding - you must mean the Matt at the site.
     
  11. Cloudcroft

    Cloudcroft Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 29, 2004
    Posts:
    471
    Location:
    The Hill Country of Texas
    Good advice!
     
  12. TonyW

    TonyW Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2005
    Posts:
    2,741
    Location:
    UK
    And did he test at the highest settings I wonder? Test sets A & B at av-comparatives with over 2.3m samples was tested at the highest setting.
     
  13. Fajo

    Fajo Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2008
    Posts:
    1,814
    if you read the test from Comparatives....... it was tested with both. low setting I think was 97.8 and high was 99.
     
  14. CountryGuy

    CountryGuy Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2008
    Posts:
    139
    I agree with you on a personal note. However, there are people who come here looking for information on security products, so its important to call FUD what it is.
     
  15. Edwin024

    Edwin024 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2004
    Posts:
    1,008
  16. ink

    ink Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2006
    Posts:
    185
    The highest settings see some false positive, strange that some gave me a notification, some didn't, just find them in the log, and static data send to symantec. I think it should give user option to ignore the suspicious file except only delete it
     
  17. removemalware

    removemalware Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2008
    Posts:
    58
    Actually I am doing NIS 2009. Working on it now. :p
     
  18. swisscoms

    swisscoms Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2002
    Posts:
    96
    Location:
    Sion, VS. Switzerland
    This is great news. Wecan't wait to see how well it performs in your tests. :)
     
  19. emperordarius

    emperordarius Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2008
    Posts:
    1,218
    Location:
    Who cares
    Finally someone that has his eyes open.
     
  20. C.S.J

    C.S.J Massive Poster

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2006
    Posts:
    5,029
    Location:
    this forum is biased!
    cool, keep em coming.

    your vids are a good watch for sure, its nice to have something to watch instead of read. lol
     
  21. Fajo

    Fajo Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2008
    Posts:
    1,814
    If you don't fall asleep.
     
  22. oliverjia

    oliverjia Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2005
    Posts:
    1,902
    I strongly agree with you.
    I am not here to BASH Norton as someone in here always accuse other people "Bashing" some AV. In fact, I would say, the best way to test an AV program is to test it against the most recent viruses, say, viruses appeared within one year. Why? Because most windows viruses attack the vulnerability of windows. Microsoft releases safety updates (patches) very 2 or 3 weeks to patch these OS vulnerabilities. So if you have an updated OS, windows probably is immune to a virus appeared in 2005, 2006, or even 2007. So I would say, to test an AV program against the most recent viruses, will give you more realistic results.
    Yes, so AV may detect 99% of the pre-2008 viruses, but if it can only detect 50% of 2008 viruses you can not say it's a excellent AV. Maybe a good one, but not top of the line.
    If you disagree with me, please note here I am not discussing a specific AV program, just a general discussion. I am NOT BASHING Norton here.



     
  23. denniz

    denniz Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2007
    Posts:
    436
    Location:
    The Netherlands
    What a strange statement... why would the people behind av-comparatives.org and av-test.org, who literally use millions of recent virus samples, test antivirus products with samples that are a year or more old? All the reputable antivirus testing companies use up-to-date samples to get the most accurate results possible.
     
  24. oliverjia

    oliverjia Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2005
    Posts:
    1,902
    OK your statement is not strange:oops: o_O
    So you mean the MILLIONS of viurses used by av-test.org or av-comparatives.org are all within one year new? I would say WOW.
    I do NOT argue with someone who just talk out of thin air. I talk based on FACTS:
    Now open your eyes and read:
    quoted from "http://www.kaspersky.com/avupdates"

    "The antivirus databases currently contain 1245893 records.

    The last update to the antivirus databases was released at 20 September 2008 at 16:32 (GMT)."

    So based on your statement, all these "Millions of viruses" in KAV antivirus database were poped out within this year?

     
  25. Fajo

    Fajo Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2008
    Posts:
    1,814
    Can anyone say Generic DETECTION. that SHORTENS the number of records. by a VERY LARGE Number..


    Edit...

    For your Viewing Pleasure.

    And this one

    now please open your EYES and READ. k thx :eek:

    Sorry for the 4 million EDITS. could not get the stupid links to link correct.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 20, 2008
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.