Duis mollis, est non commodo luctus, nisi erat porttitor ligula, eget lacinia odio sem nec elit. Sed posuere consectetur est at lobortis. Vestibulum id ligula porta felis euismod semper. Donec ullamcorper nulla non metus auctor fringilla. Aenean lacinia bibendum nulla sed consectetur. Cras justo odio, dapibus ac facilisis in, egestas eget quam. Cras mattis consectetur purus sit amet fermentum. Morbi leo risus, porta ac consectetur ac, vestibulum at eros. Sed posuere consectetur est at lobortis. Etiam porta sem malesuada magna mollis euismod. Cum sociis natoque penatibus et magnis dis parturient montes, nascetur ridiculus mus. Duis mollis, est non commodo luctus, nisi erat porttitor ligula, eget lacinia odio sem nec elit. Cras justo odio, dapibus ac facilisis in, egestas eget quam. Aenean eu leo quam. Pellentesque ornare sem lacinia quam venenatis vestibulum. Curabitur blandit tempus porttitor. Sed posuere consectetur est at lobortis.
Good find, Stu.
Congratulations to the NIS 2009 team!
I hope everyone reads down far enough to see the importance of also staying current with updates and patches for all their software.
Thanx.
But am I really happy? NIS finds 30% and still is the winner?..................
If NIS 2009 is "almost 10 times higher than the nearest competitor" then there is solace that we have the best product currently available.
I suppose all things are relative, Stu.
Hi,
yes, congratulation to Symantec. "Prayers were heared". Great work.
This is the right way.....THANKS
Cheerio
Lars Horst
The article is of questionable quality.
- What other 11 IS suites?
- What was the next leading competitor?
- What programs did they use? How outdated were those programs? What version?
- What were the procedures?
Oh I am so sorry I did not see the link to the pdf…
Stu wrote:Thanx.
But am I really happy? NIS finds 30% and still is the winner?..................
Good Job!!!
However, I personally think the 30% is way too low....considering Symantec's reputation it should have at least scored 50% and above. There are more room for improvements and I am sure they will.
Naturally, if Symentec has 30% hit rates.....the competitors......?????
Thanks for the article.
Great Norton detects and blocks exploits in programs. However, there is room for improvements. I still feel that Norton’s aggressive heuristics are still a little to conservative! It needs to up its heuristics and create a category for suspicious files and behaviors when scanning. I see that the most popular feature people want added to 2010 is software vulnerability scanning…
Thanks for sharing the article Stu!
A few thoughts on the test and the article...
I am glad to see that Symantec scored first but from what I read in the article, this test only partially shows Norton's capabilities against vulnerability protection, so I would take the percentages with a grain of salt. The test focused mainly on on-demand and on-access scanning of the vulnerable files. Hence Norton's Intrusion Prevention that monitors the network traffic for exploits attacking known vulnerabilities of the OS, the browser and other 3rd party applications is not exercised in this test. Norton's Intrusion Prevention has been part of Norton's Protection System for many years and we continuously improve it giving more emphasis on real-world threats. Secunia does not give many details in the article about the proof of concept vulnerabilities tested, so I don't have information on the prevalence of these 300 or even the 126 vulnerabilities in today's threat landscape.
Also, Norton's behavior based defense, SONAR, is not exercised in this test. SONAR technology does not kick in when opening a file or running a scan but when a threat actually executes on the system, exactly as it would in a real-world scenario.
Regarding vulnerability scanning, it is definitely another layer of protection and could be used for diagnostic purposes. However, I would like to bring up some inconveniences associated it. Assuming that some applications do not have automatic updates, hence the need for vulnerability scanning, the user will have to find, download and properly apply the patch. This is not trivial for many users. In addition, if there is an issue in the process, the user is left on his own devices. The security vendor most likely cannot resolve the problem since the patch is from another software vendor. This may be Ok for a few tech savvy users but not for the average user. Finally, every software vendor needs some time to develop, test and post the patches for new vulnerabilities. During this time, consumers will be exposed to the new vulnerability and attackers have enough large window to exploit it. In contrast, once a vulnerability is known, Norton quickly updates the Intrusion Prevention signatures, closing the window of exposure for all the Norton users.
Dora Karali
Sr. Product Manager,
Symantec Corp.
Thanx for the great explanation. That really shows some light
I also feel the same way. Those antivirus tests all test an AV program's ability to detect malware. They do not test the ability to remove malware and the firewall/real-time protection.
As I have previously mentioned, other AV programs strees detection. I noticed that those are the ones that cannot remove malware, according to various online sources and a person testing them on YouTube. Norton 2008, has superior removal rates...over 80% according to pcworld
Still other programs boast about detection, but do not come with a firewall, which blocks malware at the point of entry.