Symantec calls AV tests bogus

Basically don't trust any test in which Symantec does not excel.

http://community.norton.com/t5/Norton-Protection-Blog/Beyond-the-Headlines-Don-t-be-fooled-by-misleading-security/ba-p/943843

 

Actually Symantec have a point,most tests are incomplete/flawed in some respect.

Their main criticism of the test in question,was that it was a static detection test with all pro-active technologies disabled.It's hard to dispute that this is misleading in the real World.

 

Yeah, this is a response to the recent A-V Comparatives File Detection test. Check out the Wilders thread on that topic for a heated discussion on whether it was appropriate to test NAV 2013 despite Symantec's specific prior request not to be included in A-V Comparative tests.

 

Cry me a river Symantec.

 

This hits home to the methodology of the product your using. What is their focus? Proactive protection so that nothing gets on the system, reactive protection for after the infection touches home, etc. These sites simply expose or highlight these strengths and weaknesses of these products. If Symantec doesn't want to participate, then it should be clear what their focus has been based on what these sites are testing.

 

Symantec, like anyone else, are making a mistake in assuming that this type of test is meant to be comprehensive. Since not all products have similar features reducing a test down to a common factor that all the products have begins to compare "apples to apples" so to speak. However, in the case that Symantec is arguing against on-demand testing is not at all irrelevant, but it is also by design not meant to simulate a user. What an on-demand test can tell you is limited but in this case, it tells us that Microsoft relies on and writes definitions better than Symantec. It's kind of ridiculous for Symantec to refute this since they don't rely strictly on definitions anyway. Even considering the so-called "real-world" tests, there is no be all end all of tests; but some data, however small, can be gleaned from most of them. Don't make them more than what they are.

 

I'll take Norton over MSE any day......

 

Yep, and twice on Sunday.

 

I agree.

 

I will take a safe surfer over a wreckless one anyday.

 

File scan and on-demand tests are pointless these days anyway. Is there any AV that strictly relies on signatures only? Pretty much all of them that are worth mentioning have also on-execution analysis and blocking and as such i don't quite get it why testing organizations still waste time on pointless tests.
They should just work more on real-world tests, the stuff that matters to us the most and also requires the most work to test. So invest the manpower here instead of wasting it in pointless tests.

 

+1 and AV-comparatives should allow users to give this feedback in their annual survey. The current questionnaire does not give to users enough space to hint to this as well as more cloud friendly tests

 

pointless?
Go ask any software engineer working in av field. The whole av industry is still built on signature based detection, although behavior blockers are also very important nowadays. If virus definitions, as you said, is pointless, then why all av vendors(including symantec/norton) are still updating their virus definitions every day, or even every hours? Are they stupid to do so? So either all av vendors or ppl who said virus signatures are pointless are stupid. You pick one.
Also, if norton really believe signature based detection is useless, then why do they still update their virus definitions every few hours? this is a fact, speaker louder than any announcement symantec made to public. I won't waste my time educate illiterate, what you need to do is disable your antivirus signature update and save some computing resources.

 

I do not have the technical knowledge to argue it. However, what I do know is that until Norton once again is tested by AV-C, and performs near the top I will not use it. Somehow other AVs accept the tests and do well or not, but their results are there.
Norton won't miss me or me them.

Jerry

 

Eh? Blacklisting score alone tells you nothing at all. That's like saying: "Yes, this car has 50 airbags, it has to be the safest of them all". But what good is that if it crumples into a soda can sized box upon impact?

Maybe such tests worked fine few years ago when only some had behavior analyzers and other systems, but these days pretty much everyone do and because of that the tests also have to move on. Doing On-Demand and other static scan tests is just pointless, because they maybe tell only half of the story and as such it's like reading only first half of every book and never ever reading the rest. Real-world tests however tell the full story. And only that's what's relevant.

 

I hope other AV companies will quit meaningless on-demand-tests as well.

 

They could never do that.
Lose out on all that money invested by the vendors to get great test results.
heaven forbid.

 

Taking the book analogy: A good preview means you will finish reading it sooner or later. It also means you will tell your friends this book is good earlier and more. This directly translates to better sales.....

Not going to comment too much but I think On-demand tests are not completely useless just yet