Queries about Norton Antivirus Corporate Edition
in [Anti-Virus]
|
From: FromTheRafters on 12 Jan 2010 10:51 "George Orwell" <nobody(a)mixmaster.it> wrote in message news:d0d124fb98e582de0b1502a01bb280d7(a)mixmaster.it... > > "FromTheRafters" <erratic(a)nomail.afraid.org> wrote in message > news:higdja$bct$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... >> "Charlie" <fat.charlie(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message >> news:lhank51pbll27ojoidb59d703k075h2ujd(a)4ax.com... >> >> [...] >> >>> Symantec products TOP all others in detection having passed 45 >>> out of 46 quarterly tests for the 100% detection of the well-known >>> and >>> respected "In the Wild" testing award. >> >> Wow! 100% - that *is* good. >> (you've tipped your hand) > > Charles T Johnston has been a financially-rewarded Symantec shill for > years. > > Thanks for the nice Usenet message... I remember even then that I thought the discussions raised then, by him, did more harm than good for their image. Are you saying that they paid him for that? :oD
From: Charlie on 12 Jan 2010 16:45 On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 03:03:10 +0100 (CET), George Orwell <nobody(a)mixmaster.it> wrote: > >"FromTheRafters" <erratic(a)nomail.afraid.org> wrote in message news:higdja$bct$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... >> "Charlie" <fat.charlie(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message >> news:lhank51pbll27ojoidb59d703k075h2ujd(a)4ax.com... >> >> [...] >> >>> Symantec products TOP all others in detection having passed 45 >>> out of 46 quarterly tests for the 100% detection of the well-known and >>> respected "In the Wild" testing award. >> >> Wow! 100% - that *is* good. >> (you've tipped your hand) > >Charles T Johnston has been a financially-rewarded Symantec shill for years. > >Thanks for the nice Usenet message... > It's not been THAT many years has it? Gee let check those old pay stubs from Peter Norton.
From: Dustin Cook on 13 Jan 2010 02:27 "FromTheRafters" <erratic(a)nomail.afraid.org> wrote in news:hii59m$jm6$1 @news.eternal-september.org: > how accurate it is at detecting known threats, it's about how quickly > you researchers can react to new instances and get the new definitions > to the scanners. Antivirus comparative testing has become completely > subjective, so all claims become suspect (especially claims of 100% > accurate coverage). Sadly, alot of this is very much true. Malware is evolving at a rate that is impossible for any group to actually obtain a 100% lockdown on. It just isn't going to happen. So, we do the best we can as fast as we possibly can. -- "Is there anything in Guul Draz that doesn't suck the life out of you?" - Tarsa, Sea Gate sell-sword.
From: James Morrow on 14 Jan 2010 15:52 In article <lhank51pbll27ojoidb59d703k075h2ujd(a)4ax.com>, fat.charlie(a)yahoo.com says... > James..I noticed you snipped out the link to AV Comparatives site and > the text stating that Virus Bulletin awarded Norton security products > the Gold "Best of 2009' award. Those are NOT credible sources? Out of > the past 46 quarters that VB has been testing AV products (10+ years > now) Symantec products TOP all others in detection having passed 45 > out of 46 quarterly tests for the 100% detection of the well-known and > respected "In the Wild" testing award. > > My 'proof' was snipped by YOU to help falsely spin my post as a > "magazine reviews are gospel" soliloquy. Please James be a truthful > soul .because the Usenet archives expose your snipping and spinning > used ineffectively by you to buttress your self-serving and misleading > replies. > <snip> I quoted in accordance with what I replied to as is accepted practice in Usenet. I have no argument with the AV Comparatives article you cited. Thus I did not quote that. As for the quality of the Norton 2009 it is generally accepted that it was a great improvement over previous bloat crippled Norton products. Detection with Norton has seldom if ever been the problem. Bloat is the problem. With the introduction of Norton 2009 bloat was greatly reduced. It was the most improved AV product of the year. In my opinion it is still not the best AV product but that is my opinion. Your ad hominem attack on Dave is of little interest to anybody in this group. But it does reflect badly on your argument. -- James E. Morrow Email to: jamesemorrow(a)email.com
From: Charlie on 14 Jan 2010 18:42
On Thu, 14 Jan 2010 14:52:22 -0600, James Morrow <jamesemorrow(a)email.com> wrote: >In article <lhank51pbll27ojoidb59d703k075h2ujd(a)4ax.com>, >fat.charlie(a)yahoo.com says... >> James..I noticed you snipped out the link to AV Comparatives site and >> the text stating that Virus Bulletin awarded Norton security products >> the Gold "Best of 2009' award. Those are NOT credible sources? Out of >> the past 46 quarters that VB has been testing AV products (10+ years >> now) Symantec products TOP all others in detection having passed 45 >> out of 46 quarterly tests for the 100% detection of the well-known and >> respected "In the Wild" testing award. >> >> My 'proof' was snipped by YOU to help falsely spin my post as a >> "magazine reviews are gospel" soliloquy. Please James be a truthful >> soul .because the Usenet archives expose your snipping and spinning >> used ineffectively by you to buttress your self-serving and misleading >> replies. >> ><snip> > >I quoted in accordance with what I replied to as is accepted practice >in Usenet. I have no argument with the AV Comparatives article you >cited. Thus I did not quote that. > >As for the quality of the Norton 2009 it is generally accepted that it >was a great improvement over previous bloat crippled Norton products. >Detection with Norton has seldom if ever been the problem. Bloat is the >problem. With the introduction of Norton 2009 bloat was greatly >reduced. It was the most improved AV product of the year. In my opinion >it is still not the best AV product but that is my opinion. > >Your ad hominem attack on Dave is of little interest to anybody in this >group. But it does reflect badly on your argument. OK James and I now understand your reply's interleaved format. Thank you for a spirited discussion. Not so sure that my discussion with Dave was an 'attack.' I challenged him to substantiate his AV claims and he was unwilling and / or unable to do so except for numerous self-exalting (yet unvalidated boasts of AV expertise). I presented my claims with verifiable sources. I xclearly stated I was not any kind of AV authority. No one need feel compelled to agree but I know ethically and morally I made my case where Dave did not and was little more thena 'broken record' of claims he cannot or will not backup. That's pretty common fare for Usenet when someone gets embarrasingly exposed by their own words. I think my challenge to Dave served this group a great service and bolstered the credibility of my argument. It exposed him as the charlatan and faker I believe he showed himself to be http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/charlatan �noun a person who pretends to more knowledge or skill than he or she possesses; quack. Synonyms: impostor, mountebank, fraud, fake, phony. |