Virus Bulletin August 2011 comparative anti-virus test

It would be interesting to test infection vectors like USB using 10,000 file samples, at least.

 

That would bring AVs without USB protection to their knees.

 

Sitting here applauding such a common sense post.

Remember folks Sandboxie and Defensewall detected 0% last time I checked,so they must be truly rubbish yes?

 

well, i dont know a product offering protection without checking the files when you access them.

yeah, dynamic tests evaluating the reaction to threats using all protection layers.
On the other hand, a retrospective/behavioral test would show how good are the protection capabilities (using HIPS, BB, etc) offered by a product when tested against unknown threats.

 

Dennis Lab's dynamic tests are sponsored by Symantec.

 

lol........... ...

 

Not like that is a secret; it's stated in each test report. And it shouldn't mean that Symantec bought the results, just the test. Dennis Labs is a member of AMTSO and follows the Anti-Malware Testing Standards Organisation standards.

 

Very funny. May I ask you two things here:
1. What happens if Symantec loose the test? Will they pay for it next time?
2. Why we see no sandboxes there, just anti-viruses? Anti-viruses are better with preventing infections by malicious software?

 

well, I do find Dennis lab test to be biased but as still norton is doing very well in almost all other test too, so it doesnt make much difference to me .

 

Norton is doing very well?

 

Yes, it is, in that test as well. Compare it to similar products, and it's right up there.

And since some products can't protect a modern OS (Windows 7 x64) at all, they are looking even better compared to some of the competition...

 

Nobody cares about "similar products". Everybody cares for Internet surfing and online shopping, free of threats. Symantec doesn't satisfy this condition.

 

You develop something for x64 systems, and I'd gladly use DefenseWall, but right now I cannot. You provide a product which is not similar to other products, but yet cannot be used by most of the recently sold computers in the western world.

A real world scenario wouldn't be an environment in 32-bit in ALL tests done these days. A real world scenario would be 50% tests with 32-bit and 50% tests with x64... but oh wait... then so many products/vendors wouldn't even be able to participate in the test = less money for those who conducts tests.

I look forward to a product which fully support Windows! DW is a near-perfect Anti-Malware tool for a limited number of users. I hope to see it for all of us in the future!

 

Neither does yours, good as it might be on the kind of os that can run it. x64 is the future (even the current), and software that can only protect 50% of the computers running the latest Windows is no protection at all for those of us who can't or won't go back to yesterday's technology and 32-bit operating systems. It offers me and many million of other users 0% protection.

 

Yeah, almost every notebook and PC comes with Windows 7 x64. That is the present and that is the future.

 

x64 is the present, not the future. The future is 128-bit.

 

is like saying linux or mac is near-perfect for its small number of users interested in attacking it.

Or like UAC/Sudo systems, you are asked because such systems are not designed with detection algorithms, OS is not AV! You cannot implement that security internally in OS, you would loose usability and performance because of the policy of scanning and blocking !!!

 

And that's the only argument you can provide to protect your favorite blacklisting tool? Poor, very poor. Yes, I can't protect x64 for now, but Symantec can't protect even "outdated" x32 platform for all those years.

 

Negative. Smartphones and tablets are the future, PC is the past.

 

Norton isn't my "favorite". Why are you so aggressive? You're the one who seems rabidly anti-Norton for some reason. Having a hard time dealing with people using or having positive things to say about the competition?

 

I am not going to discuss A vs B .
if @Ilya is so against norton , then let it be.


its not going effect choice of others.
I am satisfied with it and so are many millions of people. Also , I again repeat it is performing much better in many AV test . if you cannot digest it by highlighting 1 or 2 test then its your opinion .

 

Agreed. It just seems a weird way to act as a representative of a product - missing no opportunity to bash a competitor. Doesn't make a good impression at all.

 

I'm not anti-Symantec. I'm "anti" people who thinks anti-viruses are any "good" nowadays. There are no good anti-viruses at all. Yes, some better then others, Symantec's one is one of the best, but they all too outdated in its basics to be reasonable protection for their users. And yes, I'm aggressively believe in it.

 

+1......

 

I also think that antivirus cannot be trusted as first line of defense, but I also believe that somebody out there should be doing the tedious analyses of what malware is found, more as a post-mortem though. DefenseWall + an antivirus should make an irresistible combination, let's just hope that Ilya finds a way to create a version for the 64 bit OS.