Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Computer Support > Antivirus Subscription

Reply
Thread Tools

Antivirus Subscription

 
 
Nottoman
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-23-2003
http://www.my-etrust.com/microsoft/

Free for a year. Unbeatable deal.


"janjan" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:YhqFb.36523$(E-Mail Removed)...
> Hi
> My Norton Antivirus is due for renewal in a couple of days. Is there a
> less costly company to use that does the same thing, Thanks in

anticipation
> & Merry Christmas
> Jan
>
>



 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
bassbag
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-23-2003
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed) says...
> On Tue, 23 Dec 2003 01:46:13 -0000, in
> <(E-Mail Removed)>
> bassbag scrawled:
>
> >
> >>

> >All i know is that according to the link i posted (which seems pretty
> >genuine ) that an AV can win the VBA 100 awards failing to detect 299
> >real viruses ,while another detects "ALL" the viruses but fails on one
> >false positive and is disqualified.On the assumption that the criteria
> >for testing hasnt changed ,it doesnt leave me with much confidence in the
> >seemingly general acceptance (my opinion of course),that a failure means
> >it doesnt detect as many viruses as a pass, which has been proved to be a
> >false assumption.In fairness to VBA i think they sum it up nicely with a
> >quote from their procedure page...

>
> That is a very misleading statement. As you quote below, read the fine print.
>
> >"A VB 100% award means that a product has passed our tests, no more and
> >no less. The failure to attain a VB 100% award is not a declaration that
> >a product cannot provide adequate protection in the real world if
> >administered by a professional. We would urge any potential customer,
> >when looking at the VB 100% record of any software, not simply to
> >consider passes and fails, but to read the small print in the reviews."
> >
> >me

>
> Like I said, they are the best thermometer for an AV program.
>
>

Whats misleading? about a product that fails for throwing up a false
positive with "100% detection of every virus in every category" , and
another wins because it doesnt throw up a false positive but fails to
detect 299 viruses?
They are the best thermometer for an AV that complies with thier testing
criteria...nothing else.
me
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Shadow Rider
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-23-2003
°Mike° wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Dec 2003 18:57:58 -0600, in
> <(E-Mail Removed)>
> Shadow Rider scrawled:
>
>>> They are the best thermometer of an antivirus program out there --
>>> unless
>>> you know better?

>>
>> One more:
>>
>> http://www.av-test.org

>
> Again, how is that a better thermometer? Too many products missing.


They are a non profit organization and they post details about the test
results that many times explain why a particular product may have gotten a
bad rating in a test or why a product may have gotten a good rating but has
some potential problems you may want to avoid. That is something that only
subscribers to the VB100 testing get to see which makes their tests
misleading to nonsubscribers.


 
Reply With Quote
 
Shadow Rider
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-23-2003
°Mike° wrote:
> How is that a better thermometer? You are either in, or
> you're out.
>
>


You know the either your in or out results are not much different that the
VB100 result. You either have a VB100 or you don't for those who don't
subscribe to the VB100. I have always found it amusing that Norton antivirus
seems to win VB100 awards over and over yet everyone knows that there are
better AV software available than Norton AV which do not win the VB100 as
much as Norton does.

ICSA doesn't disqualify a product just because it might have a false
positive sometimes. It is qualified upon whether or not the product can
detect their testbed of viri.


 
Reply With Quote
 
°Mike°
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-23-2003
On Tue, 23 Dec 2003 06:54:51 -0600, in
<(E-Mail Removed)>
Shadow Rider scrawled:

>°Mike° wrote:
>> How is that a better thermometer? You are either in, or
>> you're out.
>>
>>

>
>You know the either your in or out results are not much different that the
>VB100 result.


Of course they're different. With VB100, you can get an overall
view of each product's performance. With ICSA, your product
is either "certified", or not - there is no grey area.

>You either have a VB100 or you don't for those who don't subscribe to
>the VB100. I have always found it amusing that Norton antivirus seems
>to win VB100 awards over and over yet everyone knows that there are
>better AV software available than Norton AV which do not win the VB100
>as much as Norton does.


Norton -- as much as I hate to admit it -- does a very good job. It's failing
is that it's so bloated, not that it's bad at what it does.

>ICSA doesn't disqualify a product just because it might have a false
>positive sometimes. It is qualified upon whether or not the product can
>detect their testbed of viri.


ICSA doesn't disqualify ANY product, so far as I can see.

--
Basic computer maintenance
http://uk.geocities.com/personel44/maintenance.html
 
Reply With Quote
 
°Mike°
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-23-2003
On Tue, 23 Dec 2003 06:46:13 -0600, in
<(E-Mail Removed)>
Shadow Rider scrawled:

>°Mike° wrote:
>> On Mon, 22 Dec 2003 18:57:58 -0600, in
>> <(E-Mail Removed)>
>> Shadow Rider scrawled:
>>
>>>> They are the best thermometer of an antivirus program out there --
>>>> unless
>>>> you know better?
>>>
>>> One more:
>>>
>>> http://www.av-test.org

>>
>> Again, how is that a better thermometer? Too many products missing.

>
>They are a non profit organization and they post details about the test
>results that many times explain why a particular product may have gotten a
>bad rating in a test or why a product may have gotten a good rating but has
>some potential problems you may want to avoid. That is something that only
>subscribers to the VB100 testing get to see which makes their tests
>misleading to nonsubscribers.


I repeat, how is av-test.org a better thermometer? There are too many
antivirus products that are not included in their tests, period.

--
Basic computer maintenance
http://uk.geocities.com/personel44/maintenance.html
 
Reply With Quote
 
°Mike°
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-23-2003
On Tue, 23 Dec 2003 10:50:57 -0000, in
<(E-Mail Removed)>
bassbag scrawled:

>In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
>(E-Mail Removed) says...
>> On Tue, 23 Dec 2003 01:46:13 -0000, in
>> <(E-Mail Removed)>
>> bassbag scrawled:
>>
>> >
>> >>
>> >All i know is that according to the link i posted (which seems pretty
>> >genuine ) that an AV can win the VBA 100 awards failing to detect 299
>> >real viruses ,while another detects "ALL" the viruses but fails on one
>> >false positive and is disqualified.On the assumption that the criteria
>> >for testing hasnt changed ,it doesnt leave me with much confidence in the
>> >seemingly general acceptance (my opinion of course),that a failure means
>> >it doesnt detect as many viruses as a pass, which has been proved to be a
>> >false assumption.In fairness to VBA i think they sum it up nicely with a
>> >quote from their procedure page...

>>
>> That is a very misleading statement. As you quote below, read the fine print.
>>
>> >"A VB 100% award means that a product has passed our tests, no more and
>> >no less. The failure to attain a VB 100% award is not a declaration that
>> >a product cannot provide adequate protection in the real world if
>> >administered by a professional. We would urge any potential customer,
>> >when looking at the VB 100% record of any software, not simply to
>> >consider passes and fails, but to read the small print in the reviews."
>> >
>> >me

>>
>> Like I said, they are the best thermometer for an AV program.
>>
>>

>Whats misleading? about a product that fails for throwing up a false
>positive with "100% detection of every virus in every category" , and
>another wins because it doesnt throw up a false positive but fails to
>detect 299 viruses?


Like I said, you are missing the fine print. The Virus Bulletin was/is based
on an "in the wild" list. The supposed 'failures' fell outside of that list, and
that is the cause of the odd looking results. The "wild list" is standard
practice for these kind of tests.

>They are the best thermometer for an AV that complies with thier testing
>criteria...nothing else.
>me


Their testing criteria is the best there is, IMO.

--
Basic computer maintenance
http://uk.geocities.com/personel44/maintenance.html
 
Reply With Quote
 
Mellowed
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-23-2003

Check out this article in PC World.
http://www.pcworld.com/howto/article...,113462,00.asp


"janjan" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:YhqFb.36523$(E-Mail Removed)...
: Hi
: My Norton Antivirus is due for renewal in a couple of days. Is there
a
: less costly company to use that does the same thing, Thanks in
anticipation
: & Merry Christmas
: Jan
:
:


 
Reply With Quote
 
bassbag
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-23-2003
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
(E-Mail Removed) says...
> On Tue, 23 Dec 2003 10:50:57 -0000, in
> <(E-Mail Removed)>
> bassbag scrawled:
>
> >In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
> >(E-Mail Removed) says...
> >> On Tue, 23 Dec 2003 01:46:13 -0000, in
> >> <(E-Mail Removed)>
> >> bassbag scrawled:
> >>
> >> >

>
> >>

> >Whats misleading? about a product that fails for throwing up a false
> >positive with "100% detection of every virus in every category" , and
> >another wins because it doesnt throw up a false positive but fails to
> >detect 299 viruses?

>
> Like I said, you are missing the fine print. The Virus Bulletin was/is based
> on an "in the wild" list. The supposed 'failures' fell outside of that list, and
> that is the cause of the odd looking results. The "wild list" is standard
> practice for these kind of tests.
>
> >They are the best thermometer for an AV that complies with thier testing
> >criteria...nothing else.
> >me

>

Ive read the fine print , and i see that you understand the fineprint
too, but you miss the point.The fact is that most people (including
myself in the past) directed to the VBA results look at the lists and
only see "pass" and "fail" and base an avs performance on that.I dont how
many times ive seen people recommend an av based on how many passes or
fails they see at VBA 100, and the example i pointed out concerning
norton passing when it failed to detect 299 virus ,while esets nod32
failed because it brought up a single false positive but detected EVERY
virus in the same tests is beyond belief.Now if that was clearly
documented next to the result ,there would be no issue .Your first post
suggesting "avast is crap" and pointing to the link you provided to back
up your assumption (i.e 7 passes and 18 fails) means absolutely nothing
as avast may have detected all viruses but failed on one false
positive.Thats why its easy to be misled by the results shown there.
me
 
Reply With Quote
 
°Mike°
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-24-2003
On Tue, 23 Dec 2003 20:19:35 -0000, in
<(E-Mail Removed)>
bassbag scrawled:

>In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
>(E-Mail Removed) says...
>> On Tue, 23 Dec 2003 10:50:57 -0000, in
>> <(E-Mail Removed)>
>> bassbag scrawled:
>>
>> >In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
>> >(E-Mail Removed) says...
>> >> On Tue, 23 Dec 2003 01:46:13 -0000, in
>> >> <(E-Mail Removed)>
>> >> bassbag scrawled:
>> >>
>> >> >

>>
>> >>
>> >Whats misleading? about a product that fails for throwing up a false
>> >positive with "100% detection of every virus in every category" , and
>> >another wins because it doesnt throw up a false positive but fails to
>> >detect 299 viruses?

>>
>> Like I said, you are missing the fine print. The Virus Bulletin was/is based
>> on an "in the wild" list. The supposed 'failures' fell outside of that list, and
>> that is the cause of the odd looking results. The "wild list" is standard
>> practice for these kind of tests.
>>
>> >They are the best thermometer for an AV that complies with thier testing
>> >criteria...nothing else.
>> >me

>>

>Ive read the fine print , and i see that you understand the fineprint


It appears that you don't.

>too, but you miss the point.


No, *you* keep missing it. NOD32 detected viruses NOT included
in the wild list.

>The fact is that most people (including myself in the past) directed to the
>VBA results look at the lists and only see "pass" and "fail" and base an avs
>performance on that.I dont how many times ive seen people recommend
>an av based on how many passes or fails they see at VBA 100, and the
>example i pointed out concerning norton passing when it failed to detect 299
>virus ,while esets nod32 failed because it brought up a single false positive
>but detected EVERY virus in the same tests is beyond belief.


Go back and read *all* of the facts again.

>Now if that was clearly documented next to the result ,there would be no
>issue .Your first post suggesting "avast is crap" and pointing to the link you
>provided to back up your assumption (i.e 7 passes and 18 fails) means
>absolutely nothing


I base my "assumption" on facts -- I have tested the products myself,
and I tell you that Avast is crap. You're just going to keep spouting the
same old rubbish, aren't you? I see there's no reasoning with you.

> as avast may have detected all viruses but failed on one false positive.
>Thats why its easy to be misled by the results shown there.
>me


Now, why don't you go away and do some extensive research and testing
of your own, and *then* see if you have the same views about Avast,
or the VB results in general.

--
Basic computer maintenance
http://uk.geocities.com/personel44/maintenance.html
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Personal Antivirus Removal Guide (Remove fake rogue spyware calledpersonal antivirus) dfinc Cisco 7 08-06-2009 04:10 AM
Newsgroup subscription filter Spacen Jasset Firefox 0 01-16-2005 03:25 PM
symantec: norton antivirus versus norton antivirus corporate alexander rickert Computer Information 3 11-03-2004 09:37 PM
Sophos AntiVirus Vs Norton AntiVirus Tim Computer Support 7 08-16-2003 11:19 PM
Antivirus Questions - Norton Antivirus xmldso.cab file. Symevent? Nicole Kidman Computer Support 1 08-16-2003 06:13 PM



Advertisments