Symantec calls AV tests bogus

Discussion in 'other anti-malware software' started by cruelsister, Apr 17, 2013.

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

    cruelsister Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2007
    Posts:
    973
    Location:
    Paris
  2. andyman35

    andyman35 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2007
    Posts:
    2,336
    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.
     
  3. itman

    itman Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2010
    Posts:
    2,969
    Location:
    U.S.A.
    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.
     
  4. Brandonn2010

    Brandonn2010 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2011
    Posts:
    1,849
    Cry me a river Symantec.
     
  5. Techwiz

    Techwiz Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2012
    Posts:
    539
    Location:
    United States
    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.
     
  6. 1000db

    1000db Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2009
    Posts:
    718
    Location:
    Missouri
    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.
     
  7. Rompin Raider

    Rompin Raider Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2010
    Posts:
    1,228
    Location:
    North Texas
    I'll take Norton over MSE any day......
     
  8. clocks

    clocks Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2007
    Posts:
    2,559
    Yep, and twice on Sunday. :thumb:
     
  9. ProTruckDriver

    ProTruckDriver Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2008
    Posts:
    768
    Location:
    "Here on Wilders"
    I agree. :thumb:
     
  10. The Red Moon

    The Red Moon Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 17, 2012
    Posts:
    3,871
    I will take a safe surfer over a wreckless one anyday.:thumb:
     
  11. RejZoR

    RejZoR Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2004
    Posts:
    6,426
    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.
     
  12. fax

    fax Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2005
    Posts:
    3,723
    Location:
    localhost
    :thumb: +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 ;) :ninja:
     
  13. oliverjia

    oliverjia Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2005
    Posts:
    1,517
    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.


     
    Last edited: Apr 21, 2013
  14. JerryM

    JerryM Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2003
    Posts:
    4,221
    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
     
  15. RejZoR

    RejZoR Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2004
    Posts:
    6,426
    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.
     
  16. ght1

    ght1 Guest

    I hope other AV companies will quit meaningless on-demand-tests as well. ;)
     
  17. The Red Moon

    The Red Moon Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 17, 2012
    Posts:
    3,871
    They could never do that.
    Lose out on all that money invested by the vendors to get great test results.
    heaven forbid.
     
  18. Firecat

    Firecat Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2005
    Posts:
    7,927
    Location:
    The land of no identity :D
    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..... :D

    Not going to comment too much but I think On-demand tests are not completely useless just yet :)
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.