Symantec Corporation has earned an unprecedented 35th consecutive VB100 Award from Virus Bulletin. Symantec was one of only two vendors to receive a perfect detection score for all the December 2007 tests, while many security companies outright failed them. The core technology that was tested powers both Symantec’s Norton product line for consumers and enterprise products. Symantec has earned 41 VB100 Awards since 1998. To earn the VB100 designation, a product must detect—both on demand and on access, and in its default settings—all malware known to be “in the wild” at the time of the review and generate no false positives when scanning a set of clean files.
Virus Bulletin’s signature-based tests have long been considered the benchmark for gauging the quality of antivirus solutions in detecting a vast range of known viruses. There is a growing need, however, for behavioral-based tests as well. Such tests are imperative in assessing modern behavior-based systems, which detect malicious activity as it occurs, and they offer a more complete evaluation of the various ways an antivirus product can provide protection.
“It is gratifying to see the effectiveness of Symantec solutions continue to be acknowledged by well-established organizations such as Virus Bulletin. As security testing methods and technologies evolve and advance, Symantec looks forward to taking part in new opportunities that help ensure that consumers have the most comprehensive information with which to compare security products,” said Kevin Haley, director of product management, Symantec Security Response.
Last edited by RAID 0 on 20 Dec 2007 - 19:39
Norton (consumer products) are the equivalent of doing a full body cavity search on every person that enters your home.
What's the point of using less resourses if it also detects less viruses?!?!?!?!?
Fail!
What's the point of using less resourses if it also detects less viruses?!?!?!?!?
Fail!
This news article is claiming that Norton is detecting, if anything, more virii, not fewer.
What's the point of using less resourses if it also detects less viruses?!?!?!?!?
Fail!
This news article is claiming that Norton is detecting, if anything, more virii, not fewer.
Viruses, not Virii.
Sorry, hate to be a grammar nazi here, but that particular misconception of the plural of "virus" really bugs me.
bull****, see http://www.clickteam.com/epicenter/ubbthre...=true#Post68904
NOD32.. FTW..
http://www.eset.com/company/article/ESET-S...?contentID=4196
Last edited by The Walker on 20 Dec 2007 - 19:29
I mean, just how difficult is it to code a program that actually removes everything that it installs when you uninstall it? Pure bloat.
If Homer Simpson can win a Grammy award it's no wonder Symantec won the VB100.
Congratulations for destroying Norton's reputation Symantec. I sure hope you are proud of yourself!
Yousaid it all there.
"...unprecedented 35th consecutive VB100 Award..."
Prefer NOD32 tho.
Yep i use Symantec Corporate Edition too for the last 10-12yrs on loads of machines and it catches everything.....
I think one of the old version9 ones failed me once but that was because the user disabled it (so that doesn't count IMO)
Norton is for noobs
SAV Corp rocks
http://www.heise-security.co.uk/news/100900
Virus Bulletin Magazine is essentially the anti-malware industry's trade journal and their VB100 test is considered one of the most accurate--if not the most accurate--tests in the industry. Over the past nine years they have performed fifty-five (55) VB100 tests and if there were any problems with their methodology I would think they would have since been identified and corrected. One of the reasons Virus Bulletin's VB100 methodology for testing is considered to be high quality is because it is well documented and reproducible. There are many reviews done of anti-malware software where this information is never presented, leaving the reader to guess as to what options the software was configured with, the environment in which it was tested, what malware was used in testing and so forth. Speaking of malware, that brings up another point: VB100 tests are based on WildList reports. The WildList is a list of replicating malware which has been reported by the list members. It does not, however, cover non-replicating malware, which could be things like adware, bots, keyloggers, rootkits, password stealers, spyware, some Trojan horses and so forth. That may--or may not--be an important disctinction, because not every type of threat out there is from replicating code (i.e., a computer program which makes copies of itself which are, in turn, capable of making copies of themselves).
I took a quick look at the December 2007 issue of Virus Bulletin magazine, as well as this update released on December 12th, and actually noticed that there were three anti-malware programs which received "perfect" detection scores, not two as stated in today's press release. While that looks a little sloppy, it is understandable: Symantec probably started working on the press release before December 12th and did not have a chance to re-check their figures before publishing it on December 20th. What was interesting to me, though, was that Symantec chose to emphasize the fact that they won their thirty-fifth consecutive VB100 award, instead of forty-one VB100 awards in total. There are other products which have won almost as many, such as Kaspersky (40) and Sophos (39) and products which have won more, but perhaps there are not any other products which have won as many consecutively, which is what makes it interesting. In my opinion this is really a brilliant piece of marketing by Symantec, because with the interjection of a single adverb they have changed how the count of VB100 awards is interpreted, and that is quite clever of them.
Regards,
Aryeh Goretsky
Good Job Symantec!!
Commenting has either been disabled on this article or you are not logged in. Click here to login or register, its free!
Note: Anonymous commenting is disabled in order to keep the quality of responses to a high standard.