Virus Bulletin August 2011 comparative anti-virus test

While I do not agree 100% with this statement I do have a question.

If you believe smartphones and tablets are the future are you actively developing to protect these?

 

Symantec and other vendors recognize that blacklisting is not answer, hence continued development of of technologies such as SONAR. And while not perfect what choice does the average user have? Unfortunately products such as yours do not reach the average user. If were not for wilders I would never have heard of you. I have 3 laptops and 1 desktop in my home, all are 64-bit. That is what is being sold to the average person. It seems you would be better off selling your product to someone who can provide the capital to develop it and keep it up date.

 

Good Morning ! I think Ilya Rabinovich needs to take some courses in People Skill's Management. It's how you express yourself ! While his product is no doubt effective...outside of this forum...there is very little mass public perception...regarding the product. Perhaps it's time for Mr.Rabinovich to consider hiring a Public Relations Person to represent a more Customer Friendly Focus in regards to his Product. Sincerely...Securon

 

Someone like Symantec? Hopefully not.

 

Not saying Symantec. But a company with their resources for sure. If the object is to truly protect the masses of averages users then a product like DefenseWall needs capital to stay current and to reach the end user community.

 

Because its kernel totally closed from third-party vendors. iOS, Android, Bada, W7...

 

This technology is blacklisting-based too. Same with file reputation. Same with heuristic-based sandbox HIPS like KIS and Avast has. If a technology distinguish between good and bad- it's blacklisting-based.

 

So what categories of technologies for security do exist in your eyes? Blacklisting-based, sandboxing-based, policy-based?

 

Blacklisting-based (working only with bad things), whitelisting-based (working only with good things) and graylisting-based (working with the world of unknown things). Sandboxing is a part of graylisting.

 

Fortunately for us, Comodo has come to our rescue. With CIS you get the combined power of blacklisting(AV and Cloud BB) and whitelisting(D+ and sandbox)

 

It depends on what criteria you use for object identification.
Some products use just the hash, requiring one hash per file. Compared to definitions that is not a smart approach, which can identify various files with a single signature.

 

From technical point of view, it's pure blacklisting as it deal with known as bad staff only.

 

Only somewhat interested in RAP test, until they improve the methodology.

 

why are you interested in zoo-based tests and not in wild-based tests, which is more important?
RAP testing is static.
Or you disagree with the methodology only when your prefered product scores bad?

 

I never said I was more interested in zoo-based tests. Don't put words in my mouth again .
Nothing to do with my preferred product.

It's mainly because they test programs in an offline environment, which causes unrealistic results.

 

hi,
AV testing is technically and ethically corrupted since a long time.
My comments about this statement have already be given on this post: https://www.wilderssecurity.com/showpost.php?p=1893867&postcount=239
And VB100 tests are worse than AV-Test and AV-Comparative: even TrendMicro and Dr Web boycott them:
http://countermeasures.trendmicro.eu/traditional-av-testing-file-under-irrelevant/
http://news.drweb.com/show/?i=83&c=5&lng=en&p=16
I will not add Kalashnikov comments to theses no-sense tests, or just one: if there is a VB100, then there is a VB0...
Then it is a waste of time to explain such things to AV fans, as by tradition AV fans have no experience in reversing, can't extract a signature for malware matching, have not the ability to find five or ten different ways to evade and defeat an antivirus...
Each topic, question or problem is limited by our experience, and each one is right FROM HIS PERIMETER POINT OF VIEW.
Regarding Symantec, its leadership in the AV market share has been acquired by its effective mass marketing, especially with NORTON coming embedded in a big part of sold PC.
With this kind of racket practices ( http://no.more.racketware.info/index ), with the sponsoring of some av tests (there is off course RUMORS about Dlabs and VB100), Symantec prooves that a campany can control a market even if its products are less effective than its challengers ones (DrWeb has done more in R. and D. effectiveness in 10 years that Norton in 20 years).
And VB100 logo is no more no less than a marketing weapon: technically, a few of certified vb100 av can't be trusted.
Why promoting such tests if we consider that the antivirus industry has failed since the beginning?
I personally expect that av tests organizations will tell to average users which av to choose according to various criteria/on (country, support etc), and not if Norton performs better that Kaspersky which turns on a kind of war on security forums between av fans, and in the press between av editors:
http://www.comguard.net/kaspersky_june_supplement.pdf

http://www.arrowecs.pl/DNS/WWW/News.nsf/Bitmaps/sep/$FILE/SEP_Competitive_Sales_Script.pdf

The AV industry is really a wonderfull world...

Rgds

 

R&D for 10 years & basically ZERO to show for it.

 

Nortons have a super client support team and they are really an example to follow .. i had issues with their product and they were so quick that no one else had before. I might not like Norton but their support is blameless