Digerati, I don't think you should underestimate human ignorance. Also, rogues sometimes get installed through drive-by downloads which, if nothing else, is a nuisance.
AV-Test.org are releasing results of a test performed on Windows XP next week. At least, with tests using real malware, I don't mind testing performed on Windows XP as the tests are meant for the anti-virus program and not Windows. Most Windows users still use XP.
I don't. I have always said that the user is the always the weakest link.
I am more of a fan of Norton's consumer products more than I am a fan of their corporate products. When a client calls me asking what AV is good for home or commercial I usually recommend Norton IS just because the corporate software through Symantec, Endpoint Protection, isn't very effective. I have watched a few videos on YouTube and the person showing how Endpoint worked in a "real world situation" threw threats at it. The latest video done on Endpoint failed miserably. I've been using NIS 2011 since the final version came out and no problems, no infections! I am happy to say so far 2 organizations have benefited from Norton on my account and no complaints!
Well, I rarely recommend a product that will cost my clients money when there are fully capable free alternatives available. And NIS not only costs upfront, but has regular recurring/renewal fees as well.When a client calls me asking what AV is good for home or commercial I usually recommend Norton IS
Now some products are only free for home and non-commercial use. Avast! for example. So care must be taken when recommending them.
It is estimated that over 40,000 new pieces of Malware are released onto the Internet every day around the world and relying on the definitions to be released for an antiquated blacklist Antivirus software to protect your computer even the best rated AV will be completely unaware of these Zero Day Malware.
This is why Norton fails so miserably on the 148 Matousec Tests. Just because Norton does not have State of the Art multi-level default deny protection that can detect Zero Day Malware does not mean the test is unfair.
I didn't understand this either until after Norton 2009 let Malware onto my computer without detecting it and then the deficiencies of its 20th century definitions based Antivirus became crystal clear!
~Maxx~
.
As has already been mentioned (possibly in another thread), the technologies in Norton 2011 is much more advanced than in Norton 2009.
To protect against "zero day" malware Norton Antivirus 2011 uses IPS, SONAR3 (behaviour blocker), heuristics and a reputation system containing nearly two billion files.
The best way to avoid Zero Day malware is to avoid risky practices - that is, do not participate in illegal filesharing at P2P sites or via torrents, do not visit illegal porn or gambling sites, and do not follow links in unsolicited emails or chat sites for these are all sites and activities bad guys wallow in, and where they release their brand new malicious code. Why? Because they know careless users will be there and that many of these sites are not monitored for illegal activity.
So again, it is up to the user to "practice safe computing".
That's all well and good and yet Norton fails the Matousec Proactive Security Challenge on an ongoing basis with 40% passing while several more advanced Security Suites do much better on the 148 tests with several in the 90% range and one even scoring 100%. Use Norton if you want, but I and an additional 1,000,000+ more people each month prefer the freeware with the perfect score. The days of charging billion$ of dollar$ a year for $ubstandard computer $ecurity are waning...
~Maxx~
.
Quote