Well I see malware daily as part of my job and I see the results of AV vendors against those pieces of malware and Symantec is terrible from what I have seen. And what I have seen is definitely things in the wild regardless if its on the wild list or not.
And like I said earlier scanning a system for malware and seeing which vendors catch what is not a very accurate test because you actually don't know what is on the system and how many pieces of malware are there. So the fact that some other scanner caught 10 and then Symantec comes and finds 2 is not good because you don't know if both scanners are missing 100 pieces of malware. You only know what the scanners are reporting to you and there has even been a controversy in that because some scanners report false positives on purpose so that their scanning can seem more accurate. But that happens more with the anti spyware scanners. -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Greg Sevart Sent: Friday, March 03, 2006 3:10 PM To: The Hardware List Subject: Re: [H] Antivirus Have you used it? It has caught malware on my machines that many of the other popular anti-spyware tools missed... That test link someone provided also shows it does a nice job at anti-malware. So, care to qualify your statement? ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mesdaq, Ali" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, March 03, 2006 2:02 PM Subject: Re: [H] Antivirus > Where did you hear that because its definitely not the case > > -----Original Message----- > From: "Greg Sevart"<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: 3/3/06 10:16:07 AM > To: "The Hardware List"<[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [H] Antivirus > > I can confirm. > SAV-CE is a completely different codebase from the crap consumer grade > stuff > that is Norton branded. > 10.0.2 is taking 33MB of memory on thix box (I have 2GB), which I don't > consider very bad. > > I still argue it is among (if not the) best AV scanner available--it just > isn't available to the average consumer. Most people (for good reason) > hate > the Norton consumer stuff, and assume that the corporate stuff is > related...but nothing could be further from the truth. > > Interestingly, I've heard that SAV-CE10 also is the most effective malware > scanner out there--but it runs slower than anything else at this task. > > Greg > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Hayes Elkins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[email protected]> > Sent: Friday, March 03, 2006 11:18 AM > Subject: RE: [H] Antivirus > > >> The latest Symantec AntiVirus corporate edition client (10.0.2.2020) >> takes >> about 30MB of memory footprint these days. It does however do a much >> better job than the retail home user version (norton), however it will >> get >> more false positives. >> >> >>>From: Jin-Wei Tioh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>>Reply-To: The Hardware List <[email protected]> >>>To: The Hardware List <[email protected]> >>>Subject: RE: [H] Antivirus >>>Date: Fri, 03 Mar 2006 10:54:49 -0600 >>> >>>At 02:28 PM 3/2/2006, you wrote: >>>>Norton is definitely not even close to kaspersky in detection accuracy. >>> >>>Not to mention that it seems to be more resource heavy. Always hated >>>the startup time degradations with Norton. Much improved after I >>>switched to Kaspersky. >>> >>>-- >>>JW >>> >> >> >> > > > >
