09-08-2012 09:02 AM - edited 09-08-2012 09:03 AM
I just scanned the Eset, Avira and Kaspersky forums and do not see the rash of Trojan infections I see here. I'm surprised they are still so prevelant.
This begs the question as to whether there is something inherently less secure about Norton when it comes to Trojans as compared to these products.
I can assume outdated signatures is a common issue across products, so I can't lay the blame there.
Is it because Norton has a much bigger market share, or it is detecting them when other products don't?
Will the 2013 products do better?
09-08-2012 05:01 PM
That is because you don't have a clue what you are looking at. One Trojan is not the same as another trojan, and can even be a False positive.
Secondly, what Symantec / Norton detects as Trojan.Gen annother AV does not, or doesn't even detect at all.
Even what Symantec / Norton detects as Zeroaccess, Other AV's do not, even just detecting as patched or Sirefef etc.
User need to get the facts.