McAfee vs Norton, and others...

[Joe Canuck]

Yesterday I updated the definitions for McAfee, which I'm running, and
scanned the hard drive. Nothing found.

Then I ran the online Symantec virus scanner. It found 2 nasties, which
I suspect are more spyware than virus.

I've noted the followings scores at this website, which claim to offer
impartial advice regarding anti-virus software:

http://www.virusbtn.com

Pass Fail
AVG 7 20
AVAST 11 19
F-Prot 12 8
Kaspersky 25 13
Norton 27 6
Trend Micro 11 7
McAfee 18 18

About the scores, the site says:

"As the virus threat is continually changing, you should look for
products that have achieved a succession of VB 100% awards, rather than
just one or two. Developers that can best keep their products up to date
are more likely to receive VB 100% awards."

It would seem Norton is a two-thumbs up. The most recent time Norton
failed was in September 1999 on Windows NT. Since that time, Norton has
had a streak of passing grades... as per these folks.

Comments anyone?

 

[NonDisputandum.com]

Yesterday I updated the definitions for McAfee, which I'm running, and
scanned the hard drive. Nothing found.

Then I ran the online Symantec virus scanner. It found 2 nasties, which
I suspect are more spyware than virus.

I've noted the followings scores at this website, which claim to offer
impartial advice regarding anti-virus software:

http://www.virusbtn.com

Pass Fail
AVG 7 20
AVAST 11 19
F-Prot 12 8
Kaspersky 25 13
Norton 27 6
Trend Micro 11 7
McAfee 18 18

About the scores, the site says:

"As the virus threat is continually changing, you should look for
products that have achieved a succession of VB 100% awards, rather than
just one or two. Developers that can best keep their products up to date
are more likely to receive VB 100% awards."

It would seem Norton is a two-thumbs up. The most recent time Norton
failed was in September 1999 on Windows NT. Since that time, Norton has
had a streak of passing grades... as per these folks.

Comments anyone?

Technically Norton is top of the bill,.. but if you see how many have
problems once it is installed,... not with a failing detection but
with the overall impact on the computer preformance. I've deleted it
from my P4 3.6 G 2 G Ram... now a happy Avast user (+ Clam as a
second - on demand - scanner) btw: deleting Norton (completely) is an
adventure ;-)
http://www.nondisputandum.com/html/anti_virus.html

Most typical avirs do a decent job,... these day I would give more
extra attention to spywares & other malwares. Those scanners are less
perfect and need to be compensated with a second, third and even
fourth scanner. Fortunately freeware can do a fair job if you agree to
invest some time in leaning how & what to use.
http://www.nondisputandum.com/html/anti_spyware.html

greetings

 

[Mat]

Id just like to say as a Norton user myself ive found symantec products not
to slow my pc down.However i do feel norton lets in more viruses than it
detects.Ive lost count of the times ive scanned wiv housecall online scan
only to find a trojan file hasnt been picked up by me antivirus 2003

 

[Joe.Canuck |at| gmail.com]

Technically Norton is top of the bill,.. but if you see how many have
problems once it is installed,... not with a failing detection but
with the overall impact on the computer preformance. I've deleted it
from my P4 3.6 G 2 G Ram... now a happy Avast user (+ Clam as a
second - on demand - scanner) btw: deleting Norton (completely) is an
adventure ;-)
http://www.nondisputandum.com/html/anti_virus.html

Most typical avirs do a decent job,... these day I would give more
extra attention to spywares & other malwares. Those scanners are less
perfect and need to be compensated with a second, third and even
fourth scanner. Fortunately freeware can do a fair job if you agree to
invest some time in leaning how & what to use.
http://www.nondisputandum.com/html/anti_spyware.html

greetings

I was already tettering, however I think you have given me that little
nudge I needed to dump McAfee even though I get updates until September
and try Avast.

Lots of good information on your site.

 

[Boredathome]

But see this site as well.
http://www.av-comparatives.org/


I'm no expert, but part of the picture I've picked up from usenet,
magazines, reviews etc is that McAfee and Norton are about neck and neck for
virus detection, and in most of what I've read (there are always advocates
and denigrates(?) for any one or the other) are usually in the top scorers
for VIRUSES, but that McAfee is better at trojans. Most reviews I've seen
show the freebies as not getting the same detection rates.

I totally agree with one of the previous posters though, nowadays you need a
range of anti-spyware scanners/blockers. This site has been invaluable to me
http://www.spywarewarrior.com/

 

[Melissa]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: RIPEMD160

Hi Boredathome,

I'm no expert, but part of the picture I've picked up from usenet,
magazines, reviews etc is that McAfee and Norton are about neck and
neck for virus detection, and in most of what I've read (there are
always advocates and denigrates(?) for any one or the other) are
usually in the top scorers for VIRUSES ...

First, I'd like to add that while McAfee and Norton may have been, at
one time, the two "big boys" on the block, at this point, I believe
they are only used and discussed so widely because of their
aggressive advertising and product placement; not because of their
overall quality in comparison to some others now available.

Detection is only a part of the equation as well, and even when it
comes to that, other AV solutions have been more consistent in their
"top scoring"...like Kaspersky and NOD32 for instance. Beyond mere
detection though are some other important qualities to consider, like
stability, resource usage, ease of installation/un-installation, and
tech/customer support. In these areas, both NAV and McAfee score
pretty poorly compared to some others.

At the risk of sounding like a shill for Eset (though my only
connection to them is as a very happy NOD32 user over the past four
years), I'll say once again that I would be hard pressed to find a
better overall AV solution for a home user concerned about all the
various aspects of an AV in terms of overall quality. I have not a
single complaint with regards to NOD32, and have never even had to
ask for tech or customer support from Eset, because NOD32 just works
as expected.

- --
Melissa

PGP Public Keys: http://www.willkayakforfood.tk

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQCVAwUBQkjJNTEYqNTZBqoEAQOXnwP/U2wq4PoQt0un4aPHK4HEGQJEhpSTUsuT
eMm+s+zSRyXsvuTDj6aBdOSFw2QmCf/7VWiUvCABRGjPsgFeZowFoe3jWSWS2JN9
uL5dGKCEXFZi0kGZ8p9y4k5VhrtHx9mHJ97JB6cdqW6plBbBIsf2iiRHuEB7vwQc
Mv03GkqQhYY=
=1Cn2
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

 

[Melissa]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: RIPEMD160

Hi Joe Canuck,

On Sun, 27 Mar 2005 09:40:13 -0500, you wrote:

Pass Fail

Norton 27 6

McAfee 18 18

NOD32: 30 3

NOD32's three failures:

1) April 2002/SuSE Linux (all tested AVs failed that one)

2) Nov. 2000/Windows NT (most AVs tested failed that one)

3) Feb. 1998/DOS (several failed, including NAV)

- --
Melissa

PGP Public Keys: http://www.willkayakforfood.tk

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQCVAwUBQkkUgjEYqNTZBqoEAQM1zAQAiArdFy4AltYIivHyG0M1d9EcGH8EIMC7
btOq2Cp6KTo7yl117AKRDPtpDpvGyr78oZ+Z4kZvcLEeh67I1meS104spZqPkLkV
EoJrkr/1z1E85piMyNjM2bJcl2uvkDM47f3hDakwyHlbmI2d1IKPCWbFZn37oe6i
ubQNOv9jWVs=
=a/Iy
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

 

[Wattsville Blues]

NOD32's three failures:

1) April 2002/SuSE Linux (all tested AVs failed that one)

2) Nov. 2000/Windows NT (most AVs tested failed that one)

3) Feb. 1998/DOS (several failed, including NAV)

- --
Melissa

What about Eset's claim that NOD32 has never failed a VB test?

 

[Boredathome]

Greetings Melissa

Thanks for the comments - I've used Mcafee for some years (and Dr Solomon,
the previous incarnation, before that) and never had a problem with it. It's
stopped everything that's ever been sent my way. Installed it on numerous of
my own computers and also on various friends' computers.

Having said that I hate the way they've moving away from being able to do
manual updates, so I am looking around. Is it possible with NOD32 to save
the updates to disk - I like to do that so that whenever I do a system
reinstall I can get everything uptodate before going on line.

Cheers

 

[Melissa]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: RIPEMD160

Hi Wattsville Blues,

What about Eset's claim that NOD32 has never failed a VB test?

Is this the Eset qoute you're referring to?:

"Eset's NOD32 Antivirus remains the only product in the world that
has not missed a single In the Wild virus in any of the prominent
Virus Bulletin tests it had been submitted to, since May 1998!"

Now, a "failure" of a VB 100 test does not necessarily mean that a
virus detection was missed. Even a single false positive detection
will constitute a "failure" according to VB; even if 100% of actual
viruses in the same test were accurately detected. Out of curiosity,
I've been googling a bit in an effort to find the actual reasons for
NOD32's three "failed" VB 100 tests, and I've only come up with a few
quotes from Eset themselves and a few mentions at the wilders.org
forums suggesting a false positive detection, but I haven't yet come
up with the actual independent test results explaining exactly the
reasons for these three failed tests. I've just submitted a question
about this at the wilders.org NOD32 forum, so perhaps someone there
will be able to point me in the right direction. While I wait for
any responses to my query, I'll continue...

In just my own anecdotal experience of using NOD32 for the past four
years, I've never once seen either a failed detection or a false
positive. I've also never had any issues with regards to stability,
unreasonable resource usage, or any other such annoyance. When I
look around at various news groups and other online forums, I see
many people having various *real* problems with other AVs, but about
the worst of the "problems" I see with NOD32 users are due to the
users not knowing how to configure or interpret something properly;
though still having nothing to do with NOD32's ability to actually do
its job if configured properly. Perhaps a year or two ago, there was
a short lived conflict between NOD32 and BOClean during boot up, but
that was easily corrected by a simple timing change in BOClean's
startup sequence. That was the *only problem* I ever had with NOD32,
and again, it had nothing to do with NOD32's ability to deal with
viruses.

There are many of us NOD32 users reading this news group, but how
often do you see us coming here looking for help with something that
has "gone wrong" with NOD32? On the other hand, how many people do
we see people coming here with very real problems with other AVs?
(including of course, NAV and McAfee). When it comes to actual
problems, "no news is good news" can certainly be something worth
considering, no?

- --
Melissa

PGP Public Keys: http://www.willkayakforfood.tk

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQCVAwUBQkm0tjEYqNTZBqoEAQMWiwP+LariPpzRLUJItx+S+IT+biQjkDdauYaw
3qzYnlXahkdaZOPpX/v4bkFULFcZxTMdyBV1YPhoIejQztW3SU4bE3H1FQVBVnZD
9Ln7Ls6Csk/6pSPndeXGaSRRtTIBRwkWdZVq/Qn+wY0gQ9T5VRpOj/79bfh41vCC
8981S5qoPzM=
=+NOC
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

 

[NonDisputandum.com]

I was already tettering, however I think you have given me that little
nudge I needed to dump McAfee even though I get updates until September
and try Avast.

Lots of good information on your site.

Thank you, that's the goal ;-)

 

[NonDisputandum.com]

But see this site as well.
http://www.av-comparatives.org/


I'm no expert, but part of the picture I've picked up from usenet,
magazines, reviews etc is that McAfee and Norton are about neck and neck for
virus detection, and in most of what I've read (there are always advocates
and denigrates(?) for any one or the other) are usually in the top scorers
for VIRUSES, but that McAfee is better at trojans. Most reviews I've seen
show the freebies as not getting the same detection rates.

I totally agree with one of the previous posters though, nowadays you need a
range of anti-spyware scanners/blockers. This site has been invaluable to me
http://www.spywarewarrior.com/

Indeed, Spywarewarrior is no longer a wevsite but an institute.
The best proof that the best needs no thrills and frills.


Thank you for mentioning
http://www.av-comparatives.org/
i'll check it out to see what they have to say

 

[Melissa]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: RIPEMD160

Hi,

I've just submitted a question about this at the wilders.org NOD32
forum, so perhaps someone there will be able to point me in the
right direction.

Someone at the wilders.org forum just replied to my message, and while
they haven't yet given me links to the actual test results in detail,
there is a radio interview with someone from Eset, and in that
interview, two of the three "failed" VB 100 tests are explained.
Listen to the October 23, 2004 interview here:

http://www.lets-talk-computers.net/guests/eset/administrator/

One of the "failed" tests mentioned was apparently due to a false
positive detection (though all ITW viruses were detected in the same
test), and the SuSE Linux "failed" test was explained as well (this
is the test where every product tested "failed" because none of them
had an *on-access* scanner available for Linux at the time).

If you're interested, I'll follow up with more information on these
three failed VB 100 tests as/if the information becomes available to
me, but already, two out of the three NOD32 "failed" tests are
explained without having anything to do with a single *missed* virus
detection.

- --
Melissa

PGP Public Keys: http://www.willkayakforfood.tk

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQCVAwUBQknDzjEYqNTZBqoEAQPPUAP+O6oWe+DJlU1jGJWyhPwjcBv2pQ5K+p4Y
oDAncjLU0WcwvCo8/qHjHuMVlIpGrPu2Q1R4Kb41vbTyrcFdzzfRE4oJUnpkfvUT
AyuA+mynVLBOKIOtFjiIM5UGD4W54pNSxwRVUYpYUgyUQx1yrCEU6QnwkT7uHgEp
mvSPJSZNPjg=
=9MZh
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

 

[jonah]

On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 12:04:15 -0800, Melissa

snip

There are many of us NOD32 users reading this news group, but how
often do you see us coming here looking for help with something that
has "gone wrong" with NOD32? On the other hand, how many people do
we see people coming here with very real problems with other AVs?
(including of course, NAV and McAfee). When it comes to actual
problems, "no news is good news" can certainly be something worth
considering, no?

Yeah well I am certainly a full convert to NOD 32 and I have also
installed NOD 32 on all the work domain computers, thats a lot of
licenses the boss paid for.

Why? as you said Melissa "it just works".

Thanks

 

[Joe Canuck]

Yesterday I updated the definitions for McAfee, which I'm running, and
scanned the hard drive. Nothing found.

Then I ran the online Symantec virus scanner. It found 2 nasties, which
I suspect are more spyware than virus.

I've noted the followings scores at this website, which claim to offer
impartial advice regarding anti-virus software:

http://www.virusbtn.com

Pass Fail
AVG 7 20
AVAST 11 19
F-Prot 12 8
Kaspersky 25 13
Norton 27 6
Trend Micro 11 7
McAfee 18 18

About the scores, the site says:

"As the virus threat is continually changing, you should look for
products that have achieved a succession of VB 100% awards, rather than
just one or two. Developers that can best keep their products up to date
are more likely to receive VB 100% awards."

It would seem Norton is a two-thumbs up. The most recent time Norton
failed was in September 1999 on Windows NT. Since that time, Norton has
had a streak of passing grades... as per these folks.

Comments anyone?

Ok, yesterday was the last straw. McAfee was doing the update in usual
fashion, painfully slow and no feedback that anything actually took place.

I dumped it, despite having months of updates left.

Installed Avast free version. Updates are snappy and actually provide
feedback that something took place. Ran a wee test, Avast passed.

So far, I'm a happy camper... time will tell if that remains the case.
In any case, initial impressions are very good.