What Antivirus Sucks to the MAX!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Guest]

[gordon]

They all suck ...
What idiot designed a OS that requires you to run 127 "security"-programs
or get hijacked within 15 minutes of going online ?

I kinda like the concept behind Clam-AV :
it was originally  made for Linux-users to run as a service for windoze-users..

[ultragunner]

I agree. But what sucks the most. Our friendly neighborhood antivirus "Norton"

[Shemp Howard]

After viewing the results, this thread should be renamed 'Bash Norton Antivirus'.   
Maybe you guys are referring to the yesteryear versions of norton? I have norton v2008 installed on my pc and really can't  find fault in it. www.av-comparatives.org  testing shows norton av as one of the top av's in detection and really isn't  that what it's all about?

[Info-Sec]

They all suck ...
What idiot designed a OS that requires you to run 127 "security"-programs
or get hijacked within 15 minutes of going online ?

I kinda like the concept behind Clam-AV :
it was originally  made for Linux-users to run as a service for windoze-users..

actually that is very biased.  because windows is the most used operating system it is the most targeted.  if macs were as popular as windows and had all of the functionality of windows then macs would be the hell hole of OS security.

[andyman35]

actually that is very biased.  because windows is the most used operating system it is the most targeted.  if macs were as popular as windows and had all of the functionality of windows then macs would be the hell hole of OS security.

That's a fair point you make.Since Windows is on the vast majority of home computers it stands to reason that the malware writers will target it far more frequently.Maybe Mac and unix based systems are inherently more secure,maybe not.Until there's a level playing field no-one can tell.

[ultragunner]

actually that is very biased.  because windows is the most used operating system it is the most targeted.  if macs were as popular as windows and had all of the functionality of windows then macs would be the hell hole of OS security.

Totally agree, the reason there is a few mallware on mac is there are only few mac users worldwide. Mallware makers do not bother making mallware for mac by the way.

[ultragunner]

After viewing the results, this thread should be renamed 'Bash Norton Antivirus'.   
Maybe you guys are referring to the yesteryear versions of norton? I have norton v2008 installed on my pc and really can't  find fault in it. www.av-comparatives.org  testing shows norton av as one of the top av's in detection and really isn't  that what it's all about?

According to another independent test, Norton does not fare well against unknown threats. Because it only uses  only one detection method, a) signature detection (detecting already known malware by the signature method)

Norton never has the following detection methods.

b) heuristic detection (detecting yet unknown malware by the method of emulation / code analysis / etc. Examples: "Heur.Trojan.Generic"; "a variant of: XXXXX")

c) detection of suspicious file (detecting yet unknown malware by the method of informing the user about suspicious characteristics of a sample under analysis. Examples: "Suspicious file"; "VIPRE: Suspicious")

d) detection of suspicious cryptor / packer (detecting yet unknown malware by the method of informing the user about the unknown / rare / suspicious packer / cryptor or about the fact of multiple packing / crypting. Example: "HEUR/Crypted").
Nod32 uses detection  a&b
Kaspersky uses detection a& b
Avira uses detection a & b & d
Esafe uses detection a & c

Common Sense 3 or 2 >1 detection methods clearly shows it cannot compete against it competitors.
Maybe AV Comparatives didnt test Norton against the unknown threats??
"See all these results"
http://virusinfo.info/index.php?page=testseng
http://www.virus.gr/portal/en/node/28
http://www.qnetlabs.com/
No offense, my friend but in a democracy, majority wins. It just like someone telling the world is flat, while all of us is saying it is round,  So your opinion overuled.

[MorphOS REBOL]

The results on those sites are indeed interesting, my friend.

While I totally do agree with the fine results presented for Avira (which all of them seem to have copied from better sites...) - well, you know my opinion on Avira, I guess, and this ain't a new opinion -

I am not too sure about that strange proggie only named in russian letters on site 1, though
(obviously cheap form of advertizing?) lol

Site No.2, virusinfo.gr, are obviously not up to date, with telling you a squared free only has 50 percent detection rate. (even if it is an antitrojan in the first place, which means the test is crap.) because they used version 2. !!!!!!!!!!!! It should be at least one of the 3.XX versions...
OMG this version is about half a year old, if not older? how can this be? Not just unfair, but really really poor testing behaviour... It really seems Zeus has left some of his folks.

Site No.3 is right with Avira, but does not make clear if it's the plus or the free version. Also poor.
I guess they all use stolen info from more reliable sites (remember the dubious site you promoted not too long ago?) and then do with this info what they like to:

a) be true
b) be almost true, but advertize their own s**tty product as being even better than the real best ones
c)  use some true and some false results, and then tell you s**t about their malware which they do declare the best (buy it and get f......, you know? including christmas greetings from Russia, or, if less lucky, even China...)

All i can see is they all don't even dare to touch Avira.

Cheers
The REBOL

[Shemp Howard]

According to another independent test, Norton does not fare well against unknown threats. Because it only uses  only one detection method, a) signature detection (detecting already known malware by the signature method)

Norton never has the following detection methods.

b) heuristic detection (detecting yet unknown malware by the method of emulation / code analysis / etc. Examples: "Heur.Trojan.Generic"; "a variant of: XXXXX")





  So your opinion overuled.

no heuristics?  really? what about bloodhound heuristics?

I didn't know an opinion could be overruled.

[andyman35]

no heuristics?  really? what about bloodhound heuristics?

I didn't know an opinion could be overruled.

You've a lot to learn about democracy forum style 

[Little Mac]

I've used an Enterprise version of Norton/Symantec quite recently and it had heuristics (although I don't recall it offering any control over the level, etc), but it didn't have any bloodhounds that I'm aware of.  I wonder how they managed that? 

I'm not a big fan of Avira, either.  Has nothing to do with detection ratios (on either one).  I don't like the sales/upgrade module's behavior (what is it, AVNotify?).  So I'd have to buy the full version, and if I'm going to pay, I'll just get Nod as it is a quality AV (IMO) and has the best compatibility of any I've seen (the least # of problems with other security software).

Kaspersky's got a good engine, but it hates firewalls (especially Comodo) so I won't go that route!

LM

PS:  See, I said I wanted to vote more than once... And don't get me started of McAfee!  IMO, they (as a company/policy) suck scummy pond water through a bent straw! 

[ultragunner]

The results on those sites are indeed interesting, my friend.

While I totally do agree with the fine results presented for Avira (which all of them seem to have copied from better sites...) - well, you know my opinion on Avira, I guess, and this ain't a new opinion -

I am not too sure about that strange proggie only named in russian letters on site 1, though
(obviously cheap form of advertizing?) lol

Site No.2, virusinfo.gr, are obviously not up to date, with telling you a squared free only has 50 percent detection rate. (even if it is an antitrojan in the first place, which means the test is crap.) because they used version 2. !!!!!!!!!!!! It should be at least one of the 3.XX versions...
OMG this version is about half a year old, if not older? how can this be? Not just unfair, but really really poor testing behaviour... It really seems Zeus has left some of his folks.

Site No.3 is right with Avira, but does not make clear if it's the plus or the free version. Also poor.
I guess they all use stolen info from more reliable sites (remember the dubious site you promoted not too long ago?) and then do with this info what they like to:

a) be true
b) be almost true, but advertize their own s**tty product as being even better than the real best ones
c)  use some true and some false results, and then tell you s**t about their malware which they do declare the best (buy it and get f......, you know? including christmas greetings from Russia, or, if less lucky, even China...)

All i can see is they all don't even dare to touch Avira.

Cheers
The REBOL

Look I like Avira too. But are you taking your Fandom of Avira to a FANATIC level!!!  Pls, Be more open minded, & dont always believe what you see in the net as the truth.  Like I said, "LIGHTEN UP MAN"



Moderator's Edit:  Removed political/religious reference to keep the forums in a neutral position in that regard, as per Forum Policy.  Please keep in mind that this is a world-wide forum, with users from all religions, political opinions and walks of life.  We appreciate your cooperation.  LM

[ultragunner]

The results on those sites are indeed interesting, my friend.

While I totally do agree with the fine results presented for Avira (which all of them seem to have copied from better sites...) - well, you know my opinion on Avira, I guess, and this ain't a new opinion -

I am not too sure about that strange proggie only named in russian letters on site 1, though
(obviously cheap form of advertizing?) lol

Site No.2, virusinfo.gr, are obviously not up to date, with telling you a squared free only has 50 percent detection rate. (even if it is an antitrojan in the first place, which means the test is crap.) because they used version 2. !!!!!!!!!!!! It should be at least one of the 3.XX versions...
OMG this version is about half a year old, if not older? how can this be? Not just unfair, but really really poor testing behaviour... It really seems Zeus has left some of his folks.

Site No.3 is right with Avira, but does not make clear if it's the plus or the free version. Also poor.
I guess they all use stolen info from more reliable sites (remember the dubious site you promoted not too long ago?) and then do with this info what they like to:

a) be true
b) be almost true, but advertize their own s**tty product as being even better than the real best ones
c)  use some true and some false results, and then tell you s**t about their malware which they do declare the best (buy it and get f......, you know? including christmas greetings from Russia, or, if less lucky, even China...)

All i can see is they all don't even dare to touch Avira.

Cheers
The REBOL

See this even AV-Comparatives recognizes the legitimacy of these sites

http://www.av-comparatives.org/forum/index.php?page=Board&boardID=5

Are you smarter than AV Comparatives & all of the testing sites.!!!!  Why dont you make your own Antivirus Comparsion Testing Site if you think if you are that SMART!!!!

Maybe we could call it the "Morphos Rebol Antivirus Comparison Test", Better than All independent Sites!!!, Happy now!!

Note: You are not a computer virulogist, do not pretend to be one!!!
Stop being a "Know it all" & be more Humble.

[ultragunner]

Ladies & Gentlemen, We now present the Ultimate Antivirus Comparison Testing Site"

Morphos Rebol Antivirus Comparison Testing Site,

"Everything else is a lie, only this site say the truth?

Ask super computer virulogist "Morphos Rebol" for accurate testing & do not believe anything else!!!!.

[Melih]

Ultra Gunner and Morphos Rebol....

You two must be in love dudes!!!

whats all this? come on now.. honeymoon is over... chill out guys...

We love you both and you both are great contributors to the forum, just not to eachother

Melih

[Tags:]