Symantec and McAfee NOT the Best Antiviruses!

Discussion in 'other anti-virus software' started by tsilo, Dec 2, 2007.

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

    tsilo Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2006
    Posts:
    376
    I found this article in Softpedia's site, maybe it will interesting for some people...
     
  2. jlo

    jlo Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2004
    Posts:
    475
    Location:
    UK
    Interesting article, but think is very biased to Sophos (Which does seem to have good proactive defence) but then again so does Kaspersky there new heuristics and 'Proactive defence'

    As we all know both Bitdefender and Eset are pretty good here as well?

    Thanks for posting it!

    Cheers

    Jlo
     
  3. JasSolo

    JasSolo Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 9, 2007
    Posts:
    414
    Location:
    Denmark

    As I understand it, Avira and ESET are supirior in Proative Defence, Avira with a "little" problem with FP's, though.


    Cheers
     
  4. mrhero

    mrhero Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2005
    Posts:
    297
    Location:
    Ankara , Turkey
  5. IBK

    IBK AV Expert

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2003
    Posts:
    1,819
    Location:
    Innsbruck (Austria)
  6. Mele20

    Mele20 Former Poster

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2002
    Posts:
    2,495
    Location:
    Hilo, Hawaii
    Avira has no proactive defense. KAV's is very good. Avira is planning to introduce HIPS but has not said when.
     
  7. Perman

    Perman Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2005
    Posts:
    2,160
    Hi,

    I was so sensitive to the AV report such as which is better than the other, and often switched AV simply based on that simple report. Endless hoping, keep- coming migraine, still can not satisfy my own worry.

    Then, I changed my approach by choosing a reliable, workable AV, and sticking with it. Later, adding sandbox(DefenseWall) and virtualization(DeepFreeze), sprinkling with PreVX, ComodoFW(minus Defense+) and PRFC, finally I realize that I have wasted so much so much valuable time before just to search the so-called optimal AV.

    IMO. the balance of your whole system is the focus PC user should emphasis on, not an individual application. Let's say AV A is the most sophisicated one on market, but may serve a culprit to ruin your working system. You can take AV comparison resport as a guide, but never as a Bible.

    Take care.
     
  8. tiagozt

    tiagozt Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2004
    Posts:
    331
    In my opinion Mcafee and Symantec/Norton are ONLY good marketing with very poor AVs. I prefer stay without AV to put some of these AVs in my computer. I'll know that I'm without AV while with Mcafee or Symantec you think you have an AV but you don't.
    It's a BIG mistake to put Symantec, McAfee, ESET, Kaspersky or Softwin Labs in the same way. Kaspersky and BitDefender are infinitelly better than other.
    That's all I need to say.
     
  9. Coolio10

    Coolio10 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2006
    Posts:
    1,124
    What is wrong with norton 2008? Or even 2007? When was the last time you tested any of these?
     
  10. bigc73542

    bigc73542 Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2003
    Posts:
    23,873
    Location:
    SW. Oklahoma
    I would also like to know where he got the information that McAfee And Norton aren't any good?? I have used both for years without problems.
     
  11. Perman

    Perman Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2005
    Posts:
    2,160
    Hi, guys:

    Stay calm. All he needs to say (I quote him) is this:

    S- and Mc--- are not the best AV, and are poor AV. But

    He does not say that they are not effective. Therefore in fact

    He is jealous towards these two popular apps, because

    He can not get hand on them, namely, he can not afford to try them yet.

    Take care and be happy.
     
  12. EliteKiller

    EliteKiller Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2007
    Posts:
    1,138
    Location:
    TX
    The author is simply pimping Sophos and bashing the usual suspects. Let us not forget that Sophos requested/demanded IBK (AV-Comparatives) to pull their test results a while back. ;)
     
  13. IBK

    IBK AV Expert

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2003
    Posts:
    1,819
    Location:
    Innsbruck (Austria)
    what? If you mean the internal test of Sophos, it was marked as internal from the beginning, not after they saw the results.
    Sophos will be retested in 2 weeks and currently it is possible that they will be included in the tests of next year.
     
  14. starter15

    starter15 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2007
    Posts:
    57
    I found SEP11 and SAC 10.1 to be very good products. I went back to KIS7 and Nod32 2.7.xx after seeing the recent comparatives test.
     
  15. the insider

    the insider Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 25, 2005
    Posts:
    151
    Why ? If they were very good that's all you need no ?:blink:
     
  16. Perman

    Perman Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2005
    Posts:
    2,160
    Hi,

    Would you hop back to SEP11 and SAC10.1 after seeing the updated test results next time ?

    I have since stopped doing that. You change anchored applications(I consider Firewall, AV are those), you may have to make some adjustments on other apps you have in your box. Compatibility issues are inevitable, and often regrettable; damn you do, damn you don't. Good luck.
     
  17. cruelsister

    cruelsister Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2007
    Posts:
    977
    Location:
    Paris
    After checking out this company's web page:

    "Use Cascadia Labs and our expertise in security, testing, and publishing to:

    * Test your security products.

    * Create effective white papers and reviewer's guides

    * Assess the strengths and weaknesses of competitive security products.

    * Create published reports highlighting your product strengths."

    Gee, not a chance of bias here.
     
  18. midway40

    midway40 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2006
    Posts:
    1,257
    Location:
    SW MS, USA
    I have to agree. Soon after I joined this forum I was hopping from one security solution to another on a regular basis depending upon what I read here. I had gotten tired of it so I decided to settle down with one solution. Results speak louder than words and in the nine months I have used it NIS has yet to let something through (though Vista itself can take some credit). I knew of NIS's behavioral shortcomings hence the installation of AntiBot though it hasn't said much since the install. I have heard rumblings of the inclusion of AB into the next NIS.

    I am happy with my setup and that is all that matters.
     
  19. IBK

    IBK AV Expert

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2003
    Posts:
    1,819
    Location:
    Innsbruck (Austria)
    I think AB will not be included in NIS/NAV. It will be part of SAV.
     
  20. midway40

    midway40 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2006
    Posts:
    1,257
    Location:
    SW MS, USA
    IBK, I was going by Neil Rubenking's AB review in which he states:

    Source

    This guy is supposed to have a contact at Symantec. But I have also read what you mentioned as well. Who knows what Symantec will do with AB, lol.
     
    Last edited: Dec 3, 2007
  21. tsilo

    tsilo Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2006
    Posts:
    376
    Well, for me NIS 2008 is nearly ideal product. About NAB I can say that I tested it on my old PC and result amazed me. I run about 7-8 differents malwares, undetected by large number of different AV's and NAB caught all of them. So I think if in future NAB will integrated in one of Symantec products, this detection rate will amazing!
     
  22. starter15

    starter15 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2007
    Posts:
    57

    Well, another problem I was having with SEP11 on my laptop was that even at idle, cpu usage was always at around 4-6%. This was on sony vaio vgn-sz483n, running vista. Once SEP11 was removed, this was no longer a problem.
     
  23. midway40

    midway40 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2006
    Posts:
    1,257
    Location:
    SW MS, USA
    I get that CPU usage with NIS as well. But since it doesn't really have any noticeable effect on my system, I can live with it.

    What I couldn't live with is TrustedInstaller.exe which ran 40-50% at times. Ever since installing SP1 beta I haven't noticed it yet so hopefully it was addressed.
     
  24. tiagozt

    tiagozt Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2004
    Posts:
    331
    Everything is wrongs. Tested in July 2007... MCafee and Symantec/Norton detects very few malwares in my own tests (files that I get in internet or that I receive by e-mail). While Avira, Kaspersky and F-Secure detect about 95%, Mcafee and Symantec detect about 10%... They have a ridiculous detection and I can't define they as "antivirus". I won't discuss methods or other things about my tests and other tests because I'm not here to convince people to use an AV or stay without AV. It's as "Evidence Based Medicine".
     
  25. Smokey

    Smokey Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2002
    Posts:
    1,513
    Location:
    Annie's Pub
    IMO very bad medicine, and not approved by the FDA....:rolleyes:
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.