New
#31
If you contact Matousec I am sure that they can explain in greater detail why they disabled parts of both NIS and CIS for these tests even though they already clearly have in great detail. Not everything that isn't a standard Malware detection evaluation is rigged and not every test that is as severe as dropping unknown Malware into a Security Suite to see what it does is BS.
The simple truth is that these tests drop mutually unknown viruses into each Security Suite and document the results. These tests have nothing whatsoever with detection but they have everything to do with how well a security suite can deal with Malware once detection is breached.
What could be unfair about finding out how well a Security Suite performs when the eventual piece of Malware gets through its detection? I think most people would like to know this kind of information.
You said "NIS is at the top in other legitimate tests by reputable organizations." Please don't confuse legitimacy with the type of testing that is done. I've seen Norton get over 99% in virus detection which is fantastic, but the way the Matousec Tests differ is that they find out how many layers of depth the Security Suite has by introducing Malware that the Security Suite does not recognize and document how it handles the situation and this is where Norton 2011 fails this kind of test, but a failing score is not bad news it points out a pathway to better computer security.
This kind of testing is very important because no detection is 100% accurate and a Security Suite should be able to handle any Malware and prevent it from harming the computer especially if it escapes the first line of detection. While I was running Norton 2009 for less than a year my computer was infected 3 times once by a Downloading Trojan and the System HOSTS file was infected twice. The Matousec Test results showed me that these kinds of System HOSTS file infections still occur in Norton 2011. This is sad to me because instead of denying the truth that there are problems that could be addressed Norton and the Norton faithful come out and blame the test as inaccurate instead of being honest and fixing the problem.
Its also sad to see Norton ignore the problems that independent testing labs reports find which if corrected could make Norton a much better security product than they are now. I t really makes me wonder why Norton did not incorporate the very effective HIPS software that took their their wholly owned subsidiary PC Tools rocketing straight to the top of the Matousec Proactive Security Challenge??
Since leaving Norton over a year ago neither not one of my computers has had a detection of Malware or a System HOSTS file infection even though neither computer has an Antivirus because I run my browser in the virtual space of Sandboxie which is the first in many lines of Malware defense that pass Matousec's new hard core style of testing.
~Maxx~
Quote
.
