Forums
New posts
Search forums
News
Security News
Technology News
Giveaways
Giveaways, Promotions and Contests
Discounts & Deals
Reviews
Users Reviews
Video Reviews
Support
Windows Malware Removal Help & Support
Mac Malware Removal Help & Support
Mobile Malware Removal Help & Support
Blog
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Reply to thread
Menu
Install the app
Install
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
Security
Video Reviews - Security and Privacy
Emsisoft Anti Malware (default) vs Ransominator
Message
<blockquote data-quote="MacDefender" data-source="post: 879986" data-attributes="member: 83059"><p>On the bright side, Symantec/Norton products always perform within spitting distance of the top performers, they just don't lead or excel at any particular thing. That's too bad, because SONAR was such an innovative idea when they first launched it, and Bloodhound was also revolutionary in the 90's and set the benchmark for heuristic scanning. The company clearly has had potential to innovate and lead the market, but that's no longer really what they do.</p><p></p><p>I'm not knocking these products, Norton/Symantec are always in my short list of options, but as you mentioned, each component has some drawbacks as time goes on. SONAR insight doesn't have the same level of quick reaction that Kaspersky's KSN has in terms of if one endpoint detects a file behaving badly, within literally seconds KSN will adjust the file reputation and other endpoints will statically flag the file as a virus.</p><p></p><p>Symantec is trying some cool stuff with machine learning and AI, but a detection signature that simply says "the AI thinks this is bad" (which is basically all AdvML.C means) is not at all helpful for the user, especially since they've frequently had this detection falsely flag legitimate enterprise login scripts.</p><p></p><p>With that said, their products are comprehensive, frequently go on sale, and perform within the top tier class of most standardized AV tests. It's hard to fault them. It's just not exciting and not worth putting on a pedestal. It's like the Toyota Camry of the AV world -- respectable, dependable, commonplace. Can't insult it but also can't admire it as some modern engineering marvel...</p><p></p><p>In a lot of ways this makes it a good go-to choice for family and friends who want to invest in protection. It's much easier to have them choose Norton360 than to attempt to explain how ESET is great at signatures but not behavior blocking, or F-Secure is good at most things but poor script malware protection and no firewall/network controls, etc etc.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="MacDefender, post: 879986, member: 83059"] On the bright side, Symantec/Norton products always perform within spitting distance of the top performers, they just don't lead or excel at any particular thing. That's too bad, because SONAR was such an innovative idea when they first launched it, and Bloodhound was also revolutionary in the 90's and set the benchmark for heuristic scanning. The company clearly has had potential to innovate and lead the market, but that's no longer really what they do. I'm not knocking these products, Norton/Symantec are always in my short list of options, but as you mentioned, each component has some drawbacks as time goes on. SONAR insight doesn't have the same level of quick reaction that Kaspersky's KSN has in terms of if one endpoint detects a file behaving badly, within literally seconds KSN will adjust the file reputation and other endpoints will statically flag the file as a virus. Symantec is trying some cool stuff with machine learning and AI, but a detection signature that simply says "the AI thinks this is bad" (which is basically all AdvML.C means) is not at all helpful for the user, especially since they've frequently had this detection falsely flag legitimate enterprise login scripts. With that said, their products are comprehensive, frequently go on sale, and perform within the top tier class of most standardized AV tests. It's hard to fault them. It's just not exciting and not worth putting on a pedestal. It's like the Toyota Camry of the AV world -- respectable, dependable, commonplace. Can't insult it but also can't admire it as some modern engineering marvel... In a lot of ways this makes it a good go-to choice for family and friends who want to invest in protection. It's much easier to have them choose Norton360 than to attempt to explain how ESET is great at signatures but not behavior blocking, or F-Secure is good at most things but poor script malware protection and no firewall/network controls, etc etc. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Top