Why can't Wilder's review Norton's?

I don't care if Symantec is the best in detection, or if it has faults or advantages... That's NOT what my thread was about...

The ONLY topic I asked, Is why Symantec has NEVER been reviewed by Wilders in these 20 months.. Every other MAJOR has...

From Paul I first heard their was no time (in a previous post awhile ago)...NOW I hear it's due to a lack of having a licenses provided....

I hope this doesn't turn into an NAV bashing thread.. Just because it's the World's best selling AV doesn't matter to me either way... I just want to see NAV get a review on Wilders...THAT'S ALL!

 

Most interesting posts. I did notice the lack of mention re NAV and often wondered why ... now I know!! I have been using NAV for several years now and it has let me down on occasion but that may well be that it is a user lack of knowledge thingie ... what NAV missed, AVG [a freebie] caught. No, I did not find a conflict in running both programs altho I am now back to NAV only, which expires end of this month. I do however, object that after paying top $$ for NAV that each year I have to fork out another $20.00 U.S. in order to continue receiving updates. Anyway, NAV has features that I like and grown accustomed to so a change to another AV program may not be as smooth as I would hope. Hmmm, now which ones shall I try? By the way, NAV does have auto updates but I do not rely on them ... I still check manually.

 

To be honest i dont care what other peoples opinion of nav is, i like it,and have had no problems with nav.I will be staying with it in the near future.I have also read a lot of peoples opinions of nav in this forum, and a lot of other forums .There does seem to be a lot of negative opinions about this av.I also think that a review would be most welcome,and i am not saying nav is the best, as i also have nod as a backup av, but i just want it as others do to get a fair and honest review.

The Mul

 

Hi Paul,

it's me again ;-)

I need to confess that I have not carefully examined the Wilders.Org Security Test's before. In respect of BitDefender, I found the following test report on your website:


*****************
"This fairly new anti-virus does a fine job overall. The program includes eight advanced
protection modules to keep your pc free from infections:

Mail Monitor, filtering POP3 mail (MS Exchange, Outlook, Outlook Express,
Qualcomm Eudora, Netscape Messenger), intercepting and blocking email
before its arrival.
Virus Shield, real-time protection , monitoring all active processes, intercepting
infected files.
Script Wall, protecting against script viruses, integrated in de Windows Scripting
Host.
Quarantine, stores suspected or infected files in a specific area, from where they
can be send to the support from avx.
Live!; an infected vut unknown virus can auto-disinfect itself using a download
function. checks contstantly for updates. If the product is destroyed, damaged
or a critical file is erased, an automatic auto-reload and replace will take place.
Download Center integrates into the browser, scans all downloaded file, when
infected it is safely moved and quarantined.
Office 2000: scans the Office 2000 Suite at the moment it's accessed, providing
a protection for MS Office 2000 users.
Scheduler; allows scanning and cleaning at a scheduled moment.

Though we could not test the latest feature - having no Office 2000 installed - we consider BitDefender a fair anti-virus; no more, no less. "

*******************

I wonder whether you also provide specific information about the tests performed, the test suite used etc. (This does not imply that it is necessary or appropriate to provide such information to the common user.)

Regards,

Martin

 

well here we are again

Most of you know i was about the first one here to mention NAV
Why? well again because I have used Nortons products since day one.
I would like to refer you to my previous posts on Norton.
I will also again mention why outgoing e-mail is important.
I will say I do use NOD32 along with Notron.

Outgoing e-mail is important because of Keyloggers
Why?
well picture this.
A keylogger is trying to use your default e-mail program to send your data to a web based e-mail client.
I know for a fact that some use your default e-mail client withour your knowledge. They call the program up and you never see it. You don't even have to have your e-mail client running.
What Norton does is alerts you of an outgoing e-mail even when you don't have say Outlook running.
Believe me, I DO understand all the bells and whistles going on today with AV's.
I do believe NOD has made an outstanding improvement over the old days as far as interface goes for the common user.
To survive an Av needs to be made simple for the average user?
Please go look at my previous posts.
Oldtimers prevents me from remembering all I wrote lol

con

 

Not to be argumentative, but if a keylogger is on your machine, how/why would Norton (or any other AV in this circumstance) catch it when it tries to send an outgoing email if it didn't catch the keylogger when it was loaded, executed and running?

 

If an AV has a single point of failure like a resident scanner and if there is a Windows problem or hiccup it may not be caught. That can happen to any AV or any security software. If other programs can misbehave because of Windows problems, security tools can as well.

In the case of Norton and outgoing email in this instance, if the resident didn't catch it the outgoing email scan hopefully would. If a scanner doesn't have outgoing scanning ability it wouldn't be able to catch it and you could have a problem.

Multiple layers of defense needs to be looked at in every aspect of every tool and situation. This same problem exists if an on demand scanner doesn't go deep into a zip file because it relies on the resident scanner to do all the work.

Mark

 

mssingle?
believe me Norton does.

it monitors outgoing e-mail even when you don't have your default
(outlook) e-mail client running.
It pops ip a splash screen letting you know an outbound e-mail attemp has been made.
If you dought it, try it your self to be sure.
Install a keylogger on your own system and monitor the activity.
By installing a keylogger, I mean install a monitoring software yourslf not an trojan ect.
This takes into account you have allowed full access to your e-mail client with your firewall

 

mssingle, I think perhaps you miss my point: if an AV doesn't catch malware using sig defs or heuristics, using those same tools it would not catch malware in outgoing mail either.

What controler seems to be referencing, if I understand correctly, is that Norton has an alert when outgoing mail is being sent. That's a different functionality than catching malware via scanning outgoing mail.

OE 6 SP 1 has an option which alerts when another app tries to send mail as the user. ZA Plus and Pro also have fetures restricting email sending to approved apps and preventing email address spoofing and mass mailings. So there are more apps and ways to restrict the sending of outgoing emails.

Outbound email scanning for malware alone can be no more than a panacea for users since it is limited by the detection abilities of the AV. The AV has already failed if it allowed malware to execute and run on the PC. If the AV's detection has not caught the malware it won't detect it via scanning outbound email either.

It appears what controller mentions is a different function which also can be found in other security apps as well. (I haven't had occasion to test OE's alert option.)

 

Hi

What I ment to say in my case was using a Keylogger that is using calling up your e-mail client to send the information to the person that sent or placed on your machine , the Keylogger.
SOme Keyloggers may use their own server but that would be dumb of them because then your firewall would look at the attempt and say to itself, waitaminit, this app does not have rights to access an outgoing connection. On the other hand, most people give rights in their firewall to make incomming and outgoing connections.
I will even be more specific here and list one such Keylogger that doies use your default e-mail client to send the info. GhostKeylogger)
Give it a try. Download the trial and mess around with it.
when you download it , you are being infected but rather telling the logger which options you want to use. For instance, do you want the Users info to go to a Yahoo account you have set up? ect.
The best way to see how things work with your security is try out some programs on your own.
it will be harmless. The mail will go to your own specified e-mail address not some hackers. You tehn will be able to try your firewall setting and or your AV.
Good luck to you

One important thing I forgot to mention. If the Keylogger is in the AV database, your scan will find it but if not included in the database then you would be screwed. This is where a program like Norton alers you.



con

 

I guess the real question is why anyone wants wilders to review NAV? Given what Paul said, he wont tell you how he does his test, wont tell you what malware is used, and uses 100 malware at the most.


So, you wont be able to confirm or deny his findings, which incase you don't know yet, will be poor, NAV will be rated less than NOD on any test Paul does, this is a NOD site after all.

If a NOD site said another AV was better than NOD, people would simply buy the other AV, NOD would then miss out on a sale, so it's good business on a vendors site to downgrade the competition.

 

Paul is an honest, honourable, incorruptible man.
There cannot be any doubt about that !


Sorry, I'm a little bit afraid that you're making a little mistake: this is not a NOD-site.
This board has the official ESET-NOD32 forum, yes!
And it is proud to have it !
(Just like it is proud to have the public DiamondCS, Look 'n' Stop, Javacool-software forums).
The NOD32 site is here: http://www.nod32.com/

 

That of course is your opinion, I have my own, Would you ask Ford dealership to review a Dodge? Would you ask The Cleaner to review TDS-4? would you ask McAfee to review NOD?

Of course not, so why ask A NOD forum to review a competitor, and expect an honest review.

Paul has already shown he has something to hide, by testing such limited amount of malware and not giving full discloser of files tested, and how the test was conducted.

The test is dishonest, before it has began, under Paul conditions.

 

Hi Whyme2,

I resent that. How can you be besides the truth, when you say nothing? As a reminder: the question was "Why can't Wilder's review Norton's?"

Apparently you don´t know how this board works and how it relates to the wilders.org site. Maybe you should do some reasearch.

It is your prerogative to trust Paul or not. The topic of this thread is pretty clear. The answer Paul has given is pretty clear, so one more post in here that is too far off-topic (and that includes how tests should be performed) and you will find this thread locked.

Regards,

Pieter

 

My posts where 100% on topic the reason wilders can't review NAV is it's a conflict of interest NOD is paying Paul plain and simple.

Now you can claim NOD doesn't pay Paul and lock the thread if you like, that's up to you, but Paul's hand is in NOD's pocket.

 

These are wild accusations, if not insults, with not even the slightest truth in it.
You have no idea about what you're talking about.

Paul is an honest, honourable, incorruptible man.
There cannot be any doubt about that !

 

You need to talk to Paul, even he will admit NOD pays him, plus gives away free license to Paul so he can give them to whom ever he choose.

If any other forum received gifts and money from a vendor, would you believe a review they gave on the product?

 

Well, what do you make of the Rokop AV evaluation which gives NOD almost the same rating as NAV? They both perform about the same and in the bottom half of the AV's tested. (see http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,7837164~root=security,1~mode=flat)
Is Rokop dishonest?

It seems that all the AV tests are subject to criticism; however thats a long way from saying any of them are dishonest.

In any case it would be helpful to know why you feel any test is dishonest aside from the fact you disagree with methodology employed.

It may be that you are just uncomfortable with their interpertation and unable to place them into any sort of reasonable perspective?


Regards,
Bdiamond

 

I think this thread has outlived it´s purpose.
Closed untill one of the admins decides otherwise.

Regards,

Pieter