Queries about Norton Antivirus Corporate Edition
in [Anti-Virus]
|
From: Anonymous on 9 Jan 2010 20:19 <fat.charlie(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > http://www.antivirusware.com/norton-antivirus/ Well known "paid by the click" site, gets money from Symantec sales! > http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2349866,00.asp Gets LOTS of Symantec advertising money! > http://download.cnet.com/Norton-AntiVirus-2010/3000-2239_4-10592477.html Gets LOTS of Symantec advertising money! > http://www.howtogeek.com/reviews/norton-internet-security-2010/ Well known "paid by the click" site, gets money from Symantec sales! > http://www.av-comparatives.org/index.php Paid handsomely to "test" Symantec! > Let the FACTS speak for themselves..if YOU dare! The facts DO speak for themselves! EVERY ONE of your links makes money out of pushing Symantec! You're just shilling for other shills, dipshit!
From: FromTheRafters on 9 Jan 2010 23:32 "Charlie" <fat.charlie(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:gchik5ldq86sigo72p8koipfmfn867g7s6(a)4ax.com... > Your opinions are noted however they do little to refute the facts > offered up by lab tests and reviews by respected industry and > journalistic sources, wouldn't you agree? The fact is, that they don't test for what I believe is relevant. They should test against "viruses", not non-replicating malware. Use an anti-malware application for that (much of which is more properly addressed by policy- self-imposed or otherwise). People shouldn't complain about speed, and it shouldn't factor in to the "score" given a specific product. The 'touchy-feeliness' of the gui is irrelevant. > After all who would one > researching the net for pre-sales AV data regard..your opinion or > sources like Virus Bulletin, ICSA, AV-Comparatives.org and other > similarly recognized authorities? :o( well, there's no accounting for taste. :o) > As an example Virus Bulletin has awarded Norton security products > their top Gold award (Best of 2009) and they have been lab testing AV > software for 10 years now. Is *that* what they were doing? Really, the only thing I know about Virus Bulletin is that Nick Fitzgerald was once associated with them. I just now discovered he is also (now?)associated with AVG. > We all have opinions...on AV matters mine > are based on TEST DATA not feelings or what someone else has told me > without citing credible sources. It is no surprise that anecdotal revelations often skew the actual reality of a situation. Dealing with a subset (infected computers) which has a large marketshare being "protected" by a "best selling" security program and other's being "protected" by lesser marketshare security programs, will make one believe the "best seller" is the worst performer because of sheer numbers of "best seller" protected computers encountered. Especially when the "best seller" is actually the "best enabler" for otherwise poor practices. (my dislike for suites again - mostly used by people so that they don't have to be security aware or use best practices). > I have politely cited very well-known and highly credible sources Was Gibson a highly credible source for the value of leak testing? ....I'm just sayin' > and still the shills and morons > continue to clamor about paid-for reviews and parrot back what some > other parrot told them once-upon-a-time. Just give Polly her damned cracker and be done with it! :oD > To me it is fact vs. fiction - a no brainer IMHO. Many facts have been proven false, enough to make me feel vindicated for saying to my teachers that there is no such thing as a fact - only consensus of opinion (or not). > Regardless your civility was appreciated but > likely misplaced in this cess pool of shoot-from-the-hip baseless > Norton bashing and name calling. ....but that's what I *like* about usenet. :oD
From: Charlie on 9 Jan 2010 23:44 On Sun, 10 Jan 2010 02:19:21 +0100 (CET), Anonymous <cripto(a)ecn.org> wrote: > ><fat.charlie(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >> http://www.antivirusware.com/norton-antivirus/ > >Well known "paid by the click" site, gets money from Symantec sales! > >> http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2349866,00.asp > >Gets LOTS of Symantec advertising money! > >> http://download.cnet.com/Norton-AntiVirus-2010/3000-2239_4-10592477.html > >Gets LOTS of Symantec advertising money! > >> http://www.howtogeek.com/reviews/norton-internet-security-2010/ > >Well known "paid by the click" site, gets money from Symantec sales! > >> http://www.av-comparatives.org/index.php > >Paid handsomely to "test" Symantec! > >> Let the FACTS speak for themselves..if YOU dare! > >The facts DO speak for themselves! EVERY ONE of your links makes >money out of pushing Symantec! You're just shilling for other shills, >dipshit! OK then..maybe you are right and I'm wrong. Post your sources that PROVE what you CLAIM is true...dipshit. Bet you can't.
From: Charlie on 9 Jan 2010 23:55 On Sat, 9 Jan 2010 23:32:23 -0500, "FromTheRafters" <erratic(a)nomail.afraid.org> wrote: >"Charlie" <fat.charlie(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message >news:gchik5ldq86sigo72p8koipfmfn867g7s6(a)4ax.com... > >> Your opinions are noted however they do little to refute the facts >> offered up by lab tests and reviews by respected industry and >> journalistic sources, wouldn't you agree? > >The fact is, that they don't test for what I believe is relevant. > >They should test against "viruses", not non-replicating malware. Use an >anti-malware application for that (much of which is more properly >addressed by policy- self-imposed or otherwise). > >People shouldn't complain about speed, and it shouldn't factor in to the >"score" given a specific product. > >The 'touchy-feeliness' of the gui is irrelevant. > >> After all who would one >> researching the net for pre-sales AV data regard..your opinion or >> sources like Virus Bulletin, ICSA, AV-Comparatives.org and other >> similarly recognized authorities? > >:o( well, there's no accounting for taste. :o) > >> As an example Virus Bulletin has awarded Norton security products >> their top Gold award (Best of 2009) and they have been lab testing AV >> software for 10 years now. > >Is *that* what they were doing? > >Really, the only thing I know about Virus Bulletin is that Nick >Fitzgerald was once associated with them. I just now discovered he is >also (now?)associated with AVG. > >> We all have opinions...on AV matters mine >> are based on TEST DATA not feelings or what someone else has told me >> without citing credible sources. > >It is no surprise that anecdotal revelations often skew the actual >reality of a situation. > >Dealing with a subset (infected computers) which has a large marketshare >being "protected" by a "best selling" security program and other's being >"protected" by lesser marketshare security programs, will make one >believe the "best seller" is the worst performer because of sheer >numbers of "best seller" protected computers encountered. Especially >when the "best seller" is actually the "best enabler" for otherwise poor >practices. > >(my dislike for suites again - mostly used by people so that they don't >have to be security aware or use best practices). > >> I have politely cited very well-known and highly credible sources > >Was Gibson a highly credible source for the value of leak testing? > >...I'm just sayin' > >> and still the shills and morons >> continue to clamor about paid-for reviews and parrot back what some >> other parrot told them once-upon-a-time. > >Just give Polly her damned cracker and be done with it! :oD > >> To me it is fact vs. fiction - a no brainer IMHO. > >Many facts have been proven false, enough to make me feel vindicated for >saying to my teachers that there is no such thing as a fact - only >consensus of opinion (or not). > >> Regardless your civility was appreciated but >> likely misplaced in this cess pool of shoot-from-the-hip baseless >> Norton bashing and name calling. > >...but that's what I *like* about usenet. :oD > Well if you want to set your own criteria for what tests are meaningful and that the AV testing industry has gone astray from actual facts..then so be it for you and you alone. Your public testimony pertaining to AV test methods goes against over a decade of compiled test method and test method revision. It might seem like a noble quest for your self but you have not persuaded me nor probably anyone else UNLESS you have established credibility in this field. Do you? Years ago I spoke with ICSA Labs on the phone and they informed me they use NAV as thier in-house AV client. I thought that was a pretty good endorsement above and beyond thier stellar reviews of the saame product. OK..I have been on and off Usenet over 20 years now and I know when to post and discuss and when to move on. "Arguing on usenet is like competing in Special Olympics... Even if you win you're still retarded" I know better but at least Lipman was once AGAIN exposed....he's been so FULL of BULLSHIT for so many years it is a discredit to mankind.
From: Nomen Nescio on 10 Jan 2010 05:33
<fat.charlie(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Sun, 10 Jan 2010 02:19:21 +0100 (CET), Anonymous <cripto(a)ecn.org> > wrote: > >> >><fat.charlie(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> >>> http://www.antivirusware.com/norton-antivirus/ >> >>Well known "paid by the click" site, gets money from Symantec sales! >> >>> http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2349866,00.asp >> >>Gets LOTS of Symantec advertising money! >> >>> http://download.cnet.com/Norton-AntiVirus-2010/3000-2239_4-10592477.html >> >>Gets LOTS of Symantec advertising money! >> >>> http://www.howtogeek.com/reviews/norton-internet-security-2010/ >> >>Well known "paid by the click" site, gets money from Symantec sales! >> >>> http://www.av-comparatives.org/index.php >> >>Paid handsomely to "test" Symantec! >> >>> Let the FACTS speak for themselves..if YOU dare! >> >>The facts DO speak for themselves! EVERY ONE of your links makes >>money out of pushing Symantec! You're just shilling for other shills, >>dipshit! > > OK then..maybe you are right and I'm wrong. Post your sources that > PROVE what you CLAIM is true...dipshit. Bet you can't. The Truth Is Out There For All To See, Kunta Kinte! Go to the sites and click on the links, then breathe deeply through your flared nostrils and smell the bullshit, dipshit! |