A new anti-virus test paid for by nortan gave themselfs a perfect score!!

I saw this at New Detection Test - Dennis Labs | Wilders Security Forums

We at Symantec engaged Dennis Labs to do a new type of test of security effectiveness. The results can be found here:

http://community.norton.com/norton/a...t-consumer.pdf

I know . . . I know . . . testing paid for by a vendor is suspect.

http://community.norton.com/norton/attachments/norton/ModBoard/58/1/PC-Virus-Protection-2010-DTL-Report-consumer.pdf

Symantec paid Dennis Labs to run a test and *Hears the drums rolling Nortan with a perfect score. :o :o :o OMG An even bigger shock, It gave Avira Free the second worst score.
Everybody knows Avira and A-Square is #1

Somebody pointed this out below, Oh-no nortan caught with there pants down again. :o ( Wouldn’t be the first time either) Time to give them the stick ;D I feel nortan is getting very aggressive and deceptive with their marketing. I guess honest marketing would put them out of bussiness :smiley:

Even weirder, there are some test cases for NIS (Norton) where it didn't alert nor block the threat, yet it is counted as "complete remediation" and "defended".

1 NIS None None None None None None
5 NIS None None None None None None
8 NIS None None None None None None
9 NIS None See note None None None None
13 NIS None None None None None None
21 NIS None See note None None None None
22 NIS None See note None None None None
23 NIS None See note None None None None
24 NIS None See note None Report Removed 2 tracking cookies <----Tracking cookies are not threats
29 NIS None See note None Report Removed 2 tracking cookies <----Tracking cookies are not infections
33 NIS None None None n/a n/a n/a
39 NIS None None None n/a n/a n/a

Unless I’m reading this wrong, according to the actual results shown on the table on pages 19-33 Norton was awarded “complete protection” on 12 test cases where there was no detection whatsoever and which should probably read “compromised”.

That’s why the world needs AMTSO compliant tests!

Melih

Anyone can claim that they are AMTSO compliant, well I think what you meant to say is the world needs AMTSO review board compliant tests. ;D

Peace.

Actions speak louder than words ;D

about amtos tests: http://bit.ly/1OUNaw

Hello everyone,
I bought a new Acer laptop just recently and the first thing that came off was Norton. I my books it is not very good software and there is a lot of hype attached to it. When you pay some one for a service4 naturally you would want a very good result or can I even say “the best result”. I hope that Dennis Labs isnt open to corruption but I cant see how norton got such a good result when it doesnt with other testers. Perhaps money speaks as loud as words, the more money the better the result the bigger the hype.
shadha

Though anyone can claim compliance it looks that ATM no one is willing to have their test reviewed by AMTSO review board.

Hopefully the whole AMTSO will formally act and finally define what “AMTSO compliance” is and whenever claims would be enough to forsake review by AMTSO board.

Thanks for the link. My first question to you is: “What kind of domain is your link it is seems to be a redirection”
My second question to you is per that quote:

" AMTSO does not consist only of vendors, testers (including AV-Comparatives), reviewers and publishers are also active and founding members of AMTSO.AMTSO has also a Review Analysis Board (RAB). Should a test claim to be AMTSO compliant or have a big media impact and someone feels that the test is not accurate (i.e. not following the fundamental principles of testing), they can submit it for review to the RAB. The Board will then check the test against the 9 principles and state whether the test is “compliant” or not. As the Board consists of AV vendor researchers, testers etc. who also have other things to do, it is not reasonable to expect that it will review ALL tests out there, and even less that it will review tests before they get released. This means that you will never see a test that can accurately be described as “AMTSO compliant” in advance."

Now if I understand well if abcd organization performs a test and claims to be AMTSO compliant therefore, the AMTSO review board can only double check such a claim if someone else or another organization like wxyz organization happen to have a problem with it and report it accordingly. Please correct if I’m wrong. This is very interesting.

Peace.

Jaki: I not know, sorry only found link yesterday

bit.ly seems to be a url shortening service often used by spammers to disguise email links.

Off topic, sorry.

I guess it is still up to debate if anybody is going to see tests featuring the likes of “AMTSO compliance review pending” or “AMTSO compliance reviewed” instead of phrasing that implies compliance, such as “following AMTSO principles”.

So in summary as long as a testing organization follows the AMTSO principles that test should be considered AMTSO compliant. Consequently, a test should not be required to be reviewed by the AMTSO review board in order to be considered AMTSO complaint. Am I right or wrong and if I’m right this is becoming more and more interesting, very interesting. ;D

P.S.: by the way the proper link is:

http://www.av-comparatives.org/forum/index.php?page=Thread&postID=3415#post3415

Peace.

Thanks for the info.

Peace.

One of the issues that caused particularly lively debate centred around the question of what constitutes AMTSO compliance, whatever you might understand by that term. When a tester claims to be AMTSO compliant – and many have started to do that – or uses phrasing that implies compliance, such as "following AMTSO principles", what does that mean?

Well, up to now, such phrasing has meant less than you might think it does, because AMTSO hasn’t formally defined what “AMTSO compliance” actually is.

Until the whole AMTSO will provide a formal definition it looks there is still place for individual interpretations, though until then there is nothing which prevent any tester member of AMTSO to submit their current or upcoming tests/methodologies for review by AMTSO Review Analysis board.

Of course if nobody doubt that phrasing the likes of “following AMTSO principles” and “Pending AMTSO compliance review” holds different meanings…

As a member of the AMTSO av-comparatives point of view is very enlightening. And with respect to compliance no further clarification is needed, to me. Compliance means acting according to certain accepted standards. In that respect, if a testing organization performs a test and acts according to AMTSO accepted standards such a test must be accepted as AMTSO compliant. Man, I cannot believe it, this is really interesting.

Peace.

“Even if the tester is a member of AMTSO, that doesn’t mean at all that they have the automatic endorsement of the organization for their testing.
Indeed, they’re at least as liable as anyone else to have their adherence to the AMTSO principles scrutinized by the Review Analysis Board.”

Said another AMTSO member, David Harley, not long ago whereas the rest of his article made a point that claiming compliance for some tests “doesn’t mean that they are proven to comply or have the blessing of AMTSO”.

I would guess if any tester makes a point of claiming that his/her methodology is conformant with the AMTSO guidelines, his/her tests should be reviewed (or pending review) by AMTSO Review Analysis board.

Nevertheless it appears that “AMTSO compliance” it is still up to debate and there is no telling what the final definition of the whole organization will be.

Whereas such forthcoming agreement will undoubtedly reflect what value AMTSO, its boards and its “compliance” is actually going to hold for the time being.

sometimes waiting for AMTSO compliant test’s reminds one of “Waiting for Godot”.
The wait is interminable,and you never what what you will get at the end.
Plus most of the action takes place while waiting.

Guess it ought to be clarified at the end if an entire board that review tests for AMTSO compliance can be superseded by any single tester with few lines of text whereas researchers of other fields are used to submit their works for Peer review before publication.

In addition to the current result of providing “advices”, as an organization AMTSO would be able to fulfill the above role and have AV tests finally take one step forward by factual procedures.

All I wanna say is i was not very happy norton
There are no such PROOF! as a test paid perfect score!!

edit: explicit languange (:m*)

All I can say is Norton is full of bullsh#t lies about there security anti-virus product
I agree, If they had to rely on HONEST marketing. They would probably be ■■■■■■■ IMO

Look at some of the words used. Let’s say “sonar” for example

SONAR (Symantec™ Online Network for Advanced Response) technology
Gee, there using a military word for this. I wonder what there trying to imply????? like there military grade or something

Plus Symantec seems to be getting pretty aggressive and deceptive(their choice in wording things) in there marketing lately. To me, if you have a good product, it doesn’t require much marketing for something to sell

On a funny note, Maybe Billy maze(the infomercial guy) could help them >:-D