The AV-Test Award 2012

Discussion in 'other anti-virus software' started by Sher, Jan 28, 2013.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Dark Shadow

    Dark Shadow Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2007
    Posts:
    4,553
    Location:
    USA
    Come on now,Windows Defender rocks.:p Actually thats all I am using on windows 8 and Hmp for OD + some system hardening.Windows Defender likes malware they live together in harmony.:D
     
  2. silverfox99

    silverfox99 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2006
    Posts:
    204
    Anyone know where can get good deal on F-secure license? Downloadcrew $39.99...... bit pricey no? Or if anyone know where 6 mo trial that would do...;)
     
  3. Syobon

    Syobon Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2009
    Posts:
    469
    at this rate i 'll replace nod32 with mse
     
  4. Trooper

    Trooper Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2005
    Posts:
    5,507
    Dunno if I would go that far.
     
  5. Rompin Raider

    Rompin Raider Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2010
    Posts:
    1,254
    Location:
    Texas
    I never have been infected....kind of boring but I just hang out on these forums, news sites, sports, and weather info. Just once...a false positive maybe! Oh well...:D
     
  6. Noob

    Noob Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2009
    Posts:
    6,491
    Who gets infected these days?
    Just kidding, i don't want to lure the malware hahahaha :D
     
  7. ams963

    ams963 Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2011
    Posts:
    6,039
    Location:
    Parallel Universe
    @Dark Shadow
    Yeah don't let anything change your mind. Let the two lovebirds(WD & malware) live happily ever after.:D
     
  8. ams963

    ams963 Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2011
    Posts:
    6,039
    Location:
    Parallel Universe
    @Noob
    You be careful there. Don't enrage all those malware.
     
  9. Dark Shadow

    Dark Shadow Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2007
    Posts:
    4,553
    Location:
    USA
    LOL, Yep its really to bad Windows Defender dont know the malware is living in the same house.;)However, I feel safe as my browser hangs out at wilders all day long.:D
     
  10. Syobon

    Syobon Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2009
    Posts:
    469
    yeah, maybe not, at least nod32 has a decent url blocking.
     
  11. SweX

    SweX Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2007
    Posts:
    6,429
    A huge container of salt that's what you need when looking at the tests. :)
     
  12. Dark Shadow

    Dark Shadow Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2007
    Posts:
    4,553
    Location:
    USA
    Exactly.:thumb:
     
  13. Noob

    Noob Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2009
    Posts:
    6,491
    I know man. :ninja:
     
  14. kdcdq

    kdcdq Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2002
    Posts:
    815
    Location:
    A Non-Sh*thole State
    I think the "sleeper" AV right now is Bullguard IS. I have been running it alone and in conjuction with Webroot SecureAnywhere for some time now on several systems 'cause me and BitDefender came to a "parting of the ways" a couple of years ago. BG is certainly not perfect as I have previously reported in a BullGuard IS 2013 thread, but BG, WSA, and Kaspersky are the only AVs that I am recommending at the moment. :)
     
  15. Syobon

    Syobon Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2009
    Posts:
    469
    too heavy, and in the end they are all Bitdefender clones..
     
  16. kdcdq

    kdcdq Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2002
    Posts:
    815
    Location:
    A Non-Sh*thole State
    On my systems, I don't find Bullguard IS 2013 'too heavy' at all, and it comes with a superior firewall compared to Bitdefender IS. If you tried it and found it too heavy, it is what it is...;)
     
  17. ams963

    ams963 Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2011
    Posts:
    6,039
    Location:
    Parallel Universe
    That's a good thing. You see if WD notices the malware in the house....well it may find itself losing control and who knows what would that produce.:D:argh:
     
  18. Syobon

    Syobon Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2009
    Posts:
    469
    its seems a second place isn't enough to detect even 1% of some new malware packs...

    http://www.h-online.com/security/ne...to-blame-for-New-York-Times-hack-1796293.html
     
  19. silverfox99

    silverfox99 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2006
    Posts:
    204
    Appears NYT forgot to 'turn-on' it's AV protection....... so say Symantec:

    Symantec Statement Regarding New York Times Cyber Attack
    "Advanced attacks like the ones the New York Times described in the following article, (http://nyti.ms/TZtr5z), underscore how important it is for companies, countries and consumers to make sure they are using the full capability of security solutions. The advanced capabilities in our endpoint offerings, including our unique reputation-based technology and behavior-based blocking, specifically target sophisticated attacks. Turning on only the signature-based anti-virus components of endpoint solutions alone are not enough in a world that is changing daily from attacks and threats. We encourage customers to be very aggressive in deploying solutions that offer a combined approach to security. Anti-virus software alone is not enough."

    http://www.symantec.com/connect/blogs/symantec-statement-regarding-new-york-times-cyber-attack

    Fair point, or just an excuse?
     
  20. m0use0ver

    m0use0ver Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2011
    Posts:
    81
    If its a fair point then why do they continue to sale that *faulty* model.

    After all if you know something is ineffective then why continue to market and profit from it.
     
  21. silverfox99

    silverfox99 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2006
    Posts:
    204
    Do symantec sell a 'signature-only' version of Endpoint? Symantec are implying in their statement that NYT had reduced their own protection by specifically 'turning off' functionality in software that they had purchased? According to what Symantec are saying did NYT IT tech 'turn off' SONAR, HIPS, behaviour etc etc (maybe due to some inoperability with NYT systems?).
     
  22. er34

    er34 Guest

    Symantec do not sell signature only version but if you own a lic for the newest version, you can use the previous one, too. Version 11 for example lacks any special proactive protection so it is mostly signature based and generic heuristics.

    Additionally, in the latest version 12 one can disable or turn off certain functions, they may not even install them. By not installing the firewall, the SONAR, the proactive protection, the IPS you can basically turn version 12 into version 11 (or simply like signature based).

    Of course signature based protection is not enough. Version 12 with all its protections can be very powerfull anti-malware protection but it causes much false positives alarms and certain problems. Big enterprises lie NYT tend not to use all the Symantec protection (and most often SONAR) because of the false positives and the fact it can submit to Symantec cloud some suspicious inhouse files.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 4, 2013
  23. Firecat

    Firecat Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2005
    Posts:
    8,251
    Location:
    The land of no identity :D
    Yes, SONAR and specifically Insight produce more FPs in enterprise usage (or any other large scale work environment) than I am comfortable with. I don't know why Symantec opted to go this way to be honest - it does net them good test scores, but is a huge inconvenience for some developers at times.
     
  24. Syobon

    Syobon Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2009
    Posts:
    469
    if this is true... very fair point
     
  25. lodore

    lodore Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2006
    Posts:
    9,065
    I have seen plenty of FPS with norton due to insight and sonar. symantec seem to want to simply whitelist safe files and block anything not known without asking.
     
    Last edited: Feb 5, 2013
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.