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

I used Norton for over 10 years and I can say with no reservations that their products provide very good protection. I was never infected nor hacked in all that time and Norton found and prevented a number of attempts.

If you want to hear something amazing, listen to this. I have installed MSE on the other machine here and joined their forums. Someone there asked if they needed anything other than MSE to be protected and a Moderator told them that all they needed to be fully protected was MSE and— the Windows Firewall.

Please don’t make me laugh so hard and end up peeing myself (:TNG)

What’s wrong with MSE and windows Firewall…?

Nothing if you only meet up with what it happens to know about. Anything else can do what it likes.

Surprised you should ask that question.

How often do you come in contact with malware really? If it’s regularly then your probably doing something you shouldn’t (testing unknown apps on real system etc…)

EDIT: Now with Vista\Win7 UAC is enabled by default.

How about browsing dodgy web-sites? Regardless, eg. Sandboxie is all you need for that.

What's wrong with MSE and windows Firewall....?
Nothing. It's a good setup.
How often do you come in contact with malware really?
In fact, rarely.
How about browsing dodgy web-sites?
Just use WOT. wich it's what we all should be advising to our friends and family.

Advices:
Keep Windows updated.
Check WOT’s ratings.
Don’t open strange e-mails.
Mind your torrents anf IM’s sites.
Scan with MBAM regularly.

Common sense. To browse the web is like walking the street; you’ll have to watch your step.

But what if you want to visit the dodgy web-site? I enjoy the freedom of surfing any web-site with Sandboxie.

Your not an average user, You know much more then my grandfather etc and would know not to visit a dodgy website with the right application(s).

A normal user who visits dodgy websites is asking for trouble.

No need for the cursing\product bashing in such high degree… please edit post.

(Surprised mods havn’t done something yet? ???)

Don’t quite understand what the point of this statement is.

Exactly. That’s why normal users need to be educated to use eg. Sandboxie.

The Vista Firewall says that it has two way protection when in effect, it doesn’t. It has basic controls for incoming connections but allows all outgoing by default. The user has to manually create rules for outgoing and it’s not that easy to do or understand for novice users. Many people don’t even know the difference between incoming or outgoing, or what a port is. They just leave it on default settings and assume they’re protected. I read a report on how to configure the Vista firewall and I’ll admit, there were parts I didn’t understand myself.

And do you think a that a newb who doesn’t know the difference between outubound and incomming will stand a chance with comodo/oa/anything? They’d click allow all or uninstall it. “Wtf! I don’t want to be alerted everytime I start a game, I know it’s safe!!”

There is no need for outbound controll if the system is not compromised.

I guess that in conjunction with MSE/UAC, a normal user should be more than ok… As with any security program, It can’t protect the user from him\her self. So no matter the HIPS etc… If a user wants to run a keygen, They’re gonna click allow until they can run it - later to find out they made a mistake. That’s why they need something simple like an AV That makes the decisions for them. Yes… AV’s suck… but it’s alot better then allow all.

Why is there a need for waiting for AMTSO compliant tests? No matter however strictly defined are, the testing factors to be considered, it is next to impossible to sustain factual integrity in carrying out tests - which will cause the test results to be an unfair reflection of the capabilities of the products.

What is being expected here? Will the AMTSO compliant tests show what the not-AMTSO compliant tests aren’t showing, that COMODO will rank much higher, and that there will be a shocking revealing that Avira is one of the worst AVs?

If none of the non-AMTSO compliant tests are to be heeded to, then why is that we observe a faimilar pattern in the standings across all these tests - Avira and A Squared are always the top two; Avast, Kaspersky, Norton follow closely… - because, though there are small differences in how the tests are conducted, every AV will catch what it can, and not catch what it cannot.

That’s very true. I think they should be taken for what they are, They are not a dynamic test (Executing files).
I think that static on-demand tests have their place, showing purely what an Antivirus is all about. Sure it’s not testing out the behavior blocker\hips (if they even have one) It’s testing out the antivirus. Which by the way, AFAIK the detections both on demand and on access relay the same results with comodo’s Antivirus, Disregarding D+ HIPS.

Btw… I’m going to make a thead to see if users want comodo to be tested on AV-C

Obviously I am not considering the HIPS component. Everyone know what HIPS are and what AVs are not.

In terms of pure detection, as long the tests aren’t paid for and setup by vendors, all tests are valid.

Did you mean Avast, Kaspersky, Norton follow closely…

…along with CAV?

I would have guessed that among non AMTSO tests there would be Malware Research Group and virus.gr tests for everybody too see…

As those testing factors were made next to impossible to sustain by definition, I wonder what would be the point to read the results of any tests, let alone see a reason for AMTSO itself.

Due to established habits AV tests are already non-reproducible by none other than the tester (probably following an interpretation among the lines of “Testing must not endanger the public.”)

If a peer review by an official board like AMTSO is not going to provide any meaningful value even though AMTSO supposedly defined what a “fair” test ought to be, could it be that all AMTSO members weren’t aware of such alleged factual impossibility? :-La

Why any of such AMTSO members would backpedal now instead of fulfilling “openness and transparency” principles in a reasonable way?

That’s not entirely true. At least some other firewalls ,like Norton’s, will make some of the decisions for them on all connections, in or out and will only alert on activity it does not recognize as safe. Therefore I stand by my opinion that the Windows Firewall is not enough in any scenario. Definitely not in XP without the additional layer of the UAC. Norton (NIS) is still a good choice for novice users and people who have no desire to be anything but that. It doesn’t provide perfect security but certainly more than the combination of the Windows firewall and any AV solution.

As those testing factors were made next to impossible to sustain by [i]definition[/i], I wonder what would be the point to read the results of any tests, let alone see a reason for AMTSO itself.

Due to established habits AV tests are already non-reproducible by none other than the tester (probably following an interpretation among the lines of “Testing must not endanger the public.”)

If a peer review by an official board like AMTSO is not going to provide any meaningful value even though AMTSO supposedly defined what a “fair” test ought to be, could it be that all AMTSO members weren’t aware of such alleged factual impossibility? :-La

Why any of such AMTSO members would backpedal now instead of fulfilling “openness and transparency” principles in a reasonable way?

Yes, it is clearly impossible to maintain a consistency in the testing conditions, as varying factors that determine the results are different quantitative measures for each AV being tested. For instance, in a test, if the samples collected are in favour of a certain AV’s database, the AV might score better than how it usually does. Hence, universally acceptable test results are impossible to portray.

Be it the AMTSO experts or the casual testing organizations, the varying factors cannot be neglected or avoided when deciding upon the test methodologies. “Fair” and “resonable” are subjective and relative terms. What might be fair and reasonable for a certain group of people might not be fair and reasonable for others.

Though a general consensus can be reached on opinions, for AV testing it won’t differ much in what every unbiased test reflects.

Nevertheless such outlined relativism undermine the inherent value of any test results whereas the scores “usually” seen would be no exception.

Indeed it looks that any generally available AV test is about “secret recipes” cooked by testers who are the only ones possibly able to reproduce their tests.

Even though nowadays AV tests seemingly lean toward pseudoscience there is no telling what progress a worldwide organization like AMTSO could achieve.

A worldwide “fair” and “reasonable” consensus would surely be a good premise whereas such superordinate organization would be able to provide more that any professional or casual tester alone.

Whenever insofar those varying factors can be assumed to change between localized testing organization it is not unlikely that AMTSO can potentially provide place and means to guarantee cross-tester consistency in way any individual tester (and his/her individual organization) could never do.

It would be rather appalling to eventually confirm that there would be no way for AMTSO to bring its members to an unambiguous consensus and supersede any initial “subjectivity” in matters that do not pertain generic guidelines alone.

Peer reviews, for example, would be one way to achieve openness and transparency even about those implied “varying factors” without endangering the public.