Very poor indeed...
http://www.av-comparatives.org/images/docs/avc_fdt_201303_en.pdf
Ouch. Symantec done horrible and makes me question the product while using it.
I would say that users are just not going to understand about the ability of AV products that this test did not test.
Quads
No matter how you slice it and dice it, and regardless of other tests like 'real world' tests, having such a low result in file detection is pretty bad. Especially when you're at the bottom of the pack. Just makes you wonder how they would do on the other tests.
I thought Symantec had pulled out of all the AV comparatives? Or was it just some of them? They should have pulled out of this one.
Blocking an exploit kit in-flight seems to me to be far more valuable than scanning a sack of dead files. But then again, to each his own.
I look at it this way:
Figures don't lie, but liars can figure. Stats may sway percent-niks, but I'm not persuaded by quantifiables when there's more - much more - that goes into it.
Inject a laboratory rat with an amount of carcinogens equal to half its body mass, and it will probably get some form of cancer. But that isn't how the rat normally lives. In a similar vein, typical users - and even power users - aren't subject to a massive wave of malware bombardment in a short stretch.
Past performance is the best indicator of future performance. I've been using NAV/NIS since the very early 1990s, and have never had a malware infection on any of my home computers - and I spent a lot of evening or weekend time on one or more of them. I've had PUPS and adware, but those were easy removals and not considered malicious. I've seen a lot of malware blocks and blocked intrusion attempts, so it's working for me. And by now I've learned how to fix any issues I have with NAV/NIS/N360 (on family members' machines), and where to find the resources if I need help.
There's no way to zero-defect manage malware prevention at the rate new badware emerges these days. All I can say is follow best practices, keep the OS and other software (ESPECIALLY Adobe products and Java) up to date, use an AV program (any of them). Buyers/users are free to make their own choices; NIS hasn't let me down yet, so I've made mine.
Regards,
Kelly
Another thought: The link above appears to be a specific test of Norton Antivirus ("Standalone"). Many of us use Norton Internet Security, which is even more efficient and proficient in malware prevention than just Norton Antivirus.
Multi-layered Norton Internet Security appears_not_to have been used in the above-mentioned test of "Anti-Virus" (only?) products.
Weekly on-demand scans by other big-name/brand antimalware applications reconfirm that NIS is doing its job well in real-time protection on my PCs.
Well said, Kelly. I've used Norton since 2002, and also have never had an infection. That should tell the doubters something....
jazzeyman wrote:No matter how you slice it and dice it, and regardless of other tests like 'real world' tests, having such a low result in file detection is pretty bad. Especially when you're at the bottom of the pack. Just makes you wonder how they would do on the other tests.
I thought Symantec had pulled out of all the AV comparatives? Or was it just some of them? They should have pulled out of this one.
There is a note 2 on page 4 of that report that Symantec did not apply to be tested but was included because it was highly demanded by readers and the press. Looks like Symantec is going down hill since the release of 2013 products. They need to wake up and right their ship or their next release will be called Titanic.
PhoneMan wrote:There is a note 2 on page 4 of that report that Symantec did not apply to be tested but was included because it was highly demanded by readers and the press.
It is interesting that AV-Comparatives decided to include Norton in a test from which Symantec had withdrawn over concerns that the testing methodology produced misleading results, but did not choose to include Norton in the Real World Test in which the product had always scored exceedingly well. Are the public and press not also interested in how well Norton actually prevents malware infections in the first place?
I can say that many of the testing methodology, do not show the real protection of Norton. Norton is one of the best.
If the developers will include support of basic archives Download Insight, not just the RAR, and solve the problem with flash drives, while Norton will not be equal
F4E wrote:Well said, Kelly. I've used Norton since 2002, and also have never had an infection. That should tell the doubters something....
Comments like this make me laugh.
How do you know you don't have an infection? You could unsintall Norton and install a different product and it could find an infection that Norton never even knew was there.
You cannot say you never have a virus just by using one product - just because it doesn't notify you doesn't mean something isn't there...
The recent AV-Test report shows a more comprehensive picture; how the products perform when all components of the program is in the picture, not just a static on-demand scan test.
http://www.av-test.org/en/tests/home-user/windows-8/janfeb-2013/
gary_dexter wrote:
F4E wrote:Well said, Kelly. I've used Norton since 2002, and also have never had an infection. That should tell the doubters something....
Comments like this make me laugh.
How do you know you don't have an infection? You could unsintall Norton and install a different product and it could find an infection that Norton never even knew was there.
You cannot say you never have a virus just by using one product - just because it doesn't notify you doesn't mean something isn't there...
I don't make me laugh at all,
Usually when a computer is infected with a virus or other malware, there are several symptoms that lead one to understand that something is not working properly, unless your computer has other symptoms of malfunction due to obsolete hardware and software, then it becomes difficult to know what are the reasons for the instability of the system.
I can tell you that I use NIS since 2004 and since then I have never been attacked by any type of malware.
How can I be sure?
I tried several security software on two different computers that I'm using, I quote a few of them, Kaspersky, McAfee, AVG, Trend Micro, Eset, Avira, G Data, etc...
Where Norton did not detect any infection, the others AV mentioned haven't found them either, except some false positives which I then checked with the on-line VirusTotal scanner.
While for the poor results shown by AV-Comparatives with NAV 20.2, remains to be seen to what extent is reliable, and I don't want add more.
On this I'm sure, from 2008 until 2012, Norton has almost always been in the forefront for all global tests conducted by
AV-Comparatives.
Am I supposed to convince my self that Symantec has now suddenly forgotten how to do the AV? No, never!
My thoughts remain the same, Norton is and will continue to be one of the best security software in the world.
Who's reject NORTON?But i trust it every time and many will.It never missed a single virus in my LAP.......
Is this enough for trust/prove?who need to reject it,they will show 1000's of bad things,who cares?
Who don't need norton?but we trust it........!EVERY TIME
Gary_dexter,
Laughter is good for the soul, so if it makes you laugh all the better. I take no umbrage at the slight.
As I said in my post, people are free to make their own choices and use their own judgment criteria. If you want to make an assessment based on the AV comparatives test, that's clearly your prerogative. Just saying I treat with skepticism stats and numbers based on a protocol that is fundamentally flawed in the first place, and way too easy to manipulate. It doesn't replicate realistic computer use, and doesn't look at the products holistically. What objective testing protocol allows the vendor to ask or dictate how and what settings to use for the test? And what vendor, given the chance, isn't going to influence a testing that makes its product shine better and make the competition's look weaker? An ounce of experience outweighs a pound of pie charts and bar graphs.
Regards,
Kelly
to kelly... i just try to help,if you feel this cause to down norton popularity i can remove......!i am not try to do assessment here,this is just a my history pictures!that's all.i just wanna say norton is really trusted AV. If you feel this something like another assessment like other vendors,you got big mistake.Don't teach me how to deal with viruses,how to do assesments.I just try to help,i felt one thing never HELP.okay continue!
Nuwatha,
Your photos are fine, and you and I agree - NIS/NAV are great and dependable products, based on our experiences using them.
I'm not sure I follow the rest of your post, but it's all good :-)
Regards,
Kelly
oh goodness,sorry for that felt bit of sad that's why i put that kind of reply because i try to help....
thanks kelly!
AGREEDgary_dexter made a good point. My NIS tabs showed nothing out of the ordinary through the years. And there was always that niggling but not paranoic doubt, "am I THAT good in practicing safe surfing?" Or is the suite not working as it should?
Then nuwantha shared his screen captures. So that's what it looks like on the "dangerous" side.
I don't think it's the fault of the testers for the results. Any fault the testers would have is in the construction of the tests. If they clearly acknowledge the tests do not represent real world scenarios, then the fault lies with the writeups misrepresenting the results. That is the approach I always take with these tests and their writeups.