Kudos0

Why Norton Did not take part in Retrospective Test Of AV-C recently

hi

I was very dissapointed not to see Norton in recent AV-C comparitive test . In  Retrospective test , we could have seen norton capabilities in terms of heristic scanning.

All major brands have taken this test . I hope managment could explain this since as its not fair for any company to walk out of the test .

I really like norton and I found it bad that it did not took part which reflects that it did not had confidence to score well . 

Replies

Kudos0

Re: Why Norton Did not take part in Retrospective Test Of AV-C recently

Avast, AVG, and McAfee also declined the test.  Trend Micro, I know for a fact, is almost completely in the cloud so I am not surprised there.  It doesn't even provide its own firewall.  While it is very tempting to rely on new technology, and cloud-based data-bases, which keep our systems from suffering overload, it is necessary, in my opinion, to maintain the technology in the machine.  The internet is not always available.

The generally low scores indicate that all of the antivirus developers are relying more heavily on the cloud.

Under certain circumstances profanity provides relief denied even to prayer.Mark Twain
Kudos0

Re: Why Norton Did not take part in Retrospective Test Of AV-C recently

But what was the reason that norton backed out ?

is it not good oppurtunity to test SONAR and heuristic . 

Kudos0

Re: Why Norton Did not take part in Retrospective Test Of AV-C recently

>> I was very dissapointed not to see Norton in recent AV-C comparitive test.
>
>  Avast, AVG, and McAfee also declined the test.

Why does a testing organization need _permission_ to test a product?

You buy the product, you test the product, you report the results.
No permission needed.

Kudos0

Re: Why Norton Did not take part in Retrospective Test Of AV-C recently

@joen

its not like that . AV-C is standard org which needs permissions for doing tests ( it gets payment per test ).

You just dont buy product and test as amature .

Kudos0

Re: Why Norton Did not take part in Retrospective Test Of AV-C recently

> AV-C is standard org which needs permissions for doing tests

I doubt whether that's _literally_ true.

> (it gets payment per test)

Well then.  That's something completely different!

AV Comparatives wants to get _paid by the product manufacturer_ for testing their products.

> You just dont buy product and test as amature

You completely missed the point.
There is nothing "amateur" about it.

Here in U.S. there are many -- as in a _great_ many -- "professional" organizations that test products.  Many.

They don't ask permission.  They buy the product (pay money for it themselves) and test it.

And then they publish the test results.
I subscribe to organizations that do this.

1. Buy the product, paying for it themselves.
2. No permission needed.
3. Test the products.
4. Publish the results/reviews.

That may mean a website where the reviews are either

a) free (their revenue comes from webpage ads) or

b) they may charge a subscription.

Or it may mean a magazine (e.g., Consumer Reports and _many_ others).

What almost all of these organizations have in common is:
1) they pay for the product themselves
2) they do not ask permission.

This makes them independent.

I challenge AV Comparatives website statement that says:
"providing independent av software tests".

If you receive money from the manufacturer of a product that you test, you are not TRULY independent.

Universities that receive money from "manufacturers" (used in the broad sense) to do "studies" are routinely criticized because it is said (and I believe this to be true) that they can't be COMPLETELY unbiased if they receive money from the participants in the study.

Kudos0

Re: Why Norton Did not take part in Retrospective Test Of AV-C recently

@joen , do u know anything about AV-C and its reputation ?

also, I am waiting for reply from some concerned person as no one seems to to have answer for this . Dissapointing . 

Kudos3 Stats

Re: Why Norton Did not take part in Retrospective Test Of AV-C recently


elvis wrote:

also, I am waiting for reply from some concerned person as no one seems to to have answer for this . 



Here:

http://www.wilderssecurity.com/showpost.php?p=1889287&postcount=80

Kudos0

Re: Why Norton Did not take part in Retrospective Test Of AV-C recently

I read the reply . so net disconnect is reason for cloud not to work....

still, it should have particpated. 

Kudos1 Stats

Re: Why Norton Did not take part in Retrospective Test Of AV-C recently

AV-C's rating system (from high to low) goes:
Advanced +, Advanced, Standard, Tested.

Their latest test results for _free_ products showed:
Avast Free:  Advanced
MS Sec Essentials:  Advanced
AVG Free:  Standard

Are there any other free products in the test that I didn't recognize?

NAV 18.5.0.125 got an Advanced rating (second level group).

Its detection rate was worse than the free Avast and MS SE products.

Its false positives were worse than the free MS SE.

Its scan speed was slower than the free Avast and AVG.

What does all this mean?

There is no "straight line" results for any product.  Sometimes they will be higher, sometimes they will be lower, over a long period of time.

No product is perfect.

Observations:

1. In the four _2010_ AV-C tests, NAV got 3 Advanced Plus and 1 Advanced.  That's good.

2.  Five other products got Advanced Plus in all 2010 tests:
G-Data, Avira, F-Secure, Bitdefender, Escan.  That's very good.

3. In the first 2011 test, NAV got an Advanced and they were towards the bottom of that second level group.

4. Symantec declined to participate in the second 2011 test.

Allegedly it was because there was no network connection allowed.   There is an old saying in football: "It rains on both sides of the field."  That is, don't whine when you have the same conditions as your competition.  Just compete and let the best team win.  Some products still got Advanced Plus ratings under this condition.  Why shouldn't Symantec?

5.  Overall, I would prefer that AV-C a) run tests more often (per year) with internet connection allowed to test real-world conditions; b) test more products (e.g., mbam); and c) not get permission from and not get paid by the product manufacturers.

And then there's 6.
Overall I'm satisfied with Symantec.  It goes back to not expecting perfection of anything.  Over a period of time, although perhaps not most recently, Symantec has been at or near the top.

My strongest criticism is the time it takes them to fix something once a problem has been identified.  They seem to move with the speed of a glacier.

Their best "feature" -- which happens to have nothing to do with their developers -- is this forum.  It is superior to most other AV product forums.
 

Kudos0

Re: Why Norton Did not take part in Retrospective Test Of AV-C recently

One post in this thread references the wilderssecurity.com forum  about the AV-C test.  Unfortunately it points to only one post in that thread -- which is by Symantec -- and takes it out of context.  It should show the whole thread so that you can see the back and forth on this issue.

http://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?t=299934

With regard to whether or not disconnecting from the internet is relevant any more, one poster, who works as a computer tech, says that when he is working on a client's computer trying to rid it of malware, if the computer is connected to the internet the worst kinds of malware use that connection to keep reloading itself.  He says to clean up as much as possible in Safe Mode without an internet connection _first_.  Sounds right to me

Kudos1 Stats

Re: Why Norton Did not take part in Retrospective Test Of AV-C recently


joen wrote:

[ ... ]

With regard to whether or not disconnecting from the internet is relevant any more, one poster, who works as a computer tech, says that when he is working on a client's computer trying to rid it of malware, if the computer is connected to the internet the worst kinds of malware use that connection to keep reloading itself.  He says to clean up as much as possible in Safe Mode without an internet connection _first_.  Sounds right to me



You'll often see that advice given here too! It's sound for many reasons.

On the "Rain on both sides of the field" thought:

Since Norton is designed to use "the cloud", to use the in phrase, and has two specific "tools" Norton Bootable Recovery Disk and Norton Power Eraser desgned to do the job when you are not connected to the network or otherwise crippled and offering different degrees of action why should they expose themselves to an adverse label that has no meaning in relation to how they are intended to work and are in fact normally used in practice.

It's like asking why didn't they test a Jaguar XJ under off the road conditions ...... much wiser to say "No thank you" than to see You Tube videos of it bottomed out in the mud.

Hugh
Kudos0

Re: Why Norton Did not take part in Retrospective Test Of AV-C recently

7. Once again, Norton is leading in the Whole Product Dynamic Test.

Kudos0

Re: Why Norton Did not take part in Retrospective Test Of AV-C recently

I think this post is going more off topic . I got my answer from wilders forum. 

Kudos3 Stats

Re: Why Norton Did not take part in Retrospective Test Of AV-C recently

Hi Folks,

Real-world tests are the only things which matters when it really comes down to it. The whole picture has to be looked at or the tests are largely meaningless.

Norton products use a large array of technology and it is all of those things together that tell the true story about how good a protection any given security suite provides.

This is why in real-world tests Norton constantly rates at or very near the top of the list.

My two cents worth.

Allen

Windows 7 Ultimate SP 1, 64 bit, 32 GB * NIS Vers. 21.6.0.32* Ghost 15 * IE 9, Firefox, Safari. Test laptop with W7 Home Premium 64 bit * NIS Vers. 21.6.0.32
Kudos0

Re: Why Norton Did not take part in Retrospective Test Of AV-C recently

I agree with you Allen :)

This thread is closed from further comment. Please visit the forum to start a new thread.