Battle Emsisoft Anti-Malware or Norton Internet Security 2017

[skandaloes]

My EAM license expired in 1 month and now i'm looking for an alternative.
My isp offers me norton for free and now i am thinking about to renew my eam license or take the free norton license.

How do you see this, how strong is norton in comparison?

 

[DeepWeb]

Emsisoft all the way.

 

[LukeLovesSecurity]

I selected other choice, but it should still be Emsisoft... Let me explain.

Emsisoft Anti-Malware does not include a firewall while Emsisoft Internet Security does. I recoemmend Emsisoft Internet Security.

 

[Aktiffiso]

I like more norton if you want i can changue you my emsisoft licence code for the kaspersky who you have. I have a 3 or 4 years valid licence whith emsi and 3 years whith norton

 

[legendcampos]

Real-Time : Norton
On Demand: EEK

 

[212eta]

no, you shouldn't at all.

I respectfully disagree.

 

[mekelek]

I respectfully disagree.

Norton's dynamic capabilities are far behind proper behavior blocker AVs, like Emsisoft.
Emsisoft's latest "auto bb decision" makes it least user dependent.

 

[212eta]

Norton's dynamic capabilities are far behind proper behavior blocker AVs, like Emsisoft.

Norton's 0-day Real-Time Protection (SONAR)
can outflank most Behavior Blockers...

 

[mekelek]

Norton's 0-day Real-Time Protection (SONAR)
can outflank most Behavior Blockers...

sadly my tests say otherwise, seen it in action only once in dozens of tests.

 

[Fritz]

sadly my tests say otherwise, seen it in action only once in dozens of tests.

They also might want to change it to 14-day realtime protection, 'cause that's about how long it takes SONAR to cook up a result.

 

[212eta]

sadly my tests say otherwise, seen it in action only once in dozens of tests.

I guess, AV-Comparatives does Not agree with you...

Real-World Protection Tests (June 2017)
AV-Comparatives - Independent Tests of Anti-Virus Software - Real World Protection Test Overview

 

[mekelek]

I guess, AV-Comparatives does Not agree with you...

Real-World Protection Tests (June 2017)
AV-Comparatives - Independent Tests of Anti-Virus Software - Real World Protection Test Overview

this test proves that Norton has excellent signatures, but it fails once there is no signature.

 

[Fritz]

I guess, AV-Comparatives does Not agree with you...

I guess they don't have to.

Read 10 different tests and you get 10 different outcomes. All this proves is that test a made by company b with a defined malware pack c at point in time d led to result x. Change a, b, c or d and you change x. Quite significantly.

Conclusion: These graphs are nice to look at and will give a general impression but aren't the be all and end all, nor do they guarantee a certain behaviour in any place at any time. I recommend to keep a grain of salt handy and visit the Malware Hub frequently.

 

[frogboy]

I have used both over the last few years and I regard both provided adequate protection for me here. So my vote goes to both AV's.

 

[Nightwalker]

I guess, AV-Comparatives does Not agree with you...

Real-World Protection Tests (June 2017)
AV-Comparatives - Independent Tests of Anti-Virus Software - Real World Protection Test Overview

I guess AV- Comparatives agrees with @mekelek , look at the yellow bar (behavior blocker) from Emsisoft, it is 100 % protection.

Take a look at Malware Hub here on MalwareTips and you will see how a great behavior blocker makes all the difference against zero day and targeted malware.

 

[mlnevese]

Tests such as AV Comparative's real world protection tests are good to check who had the better signatures on the day the test was conducted regarding the samples used... nothing more. Any f the respected names out there will provide good protection, none will be perfect, so choose one that behaves well in your system and stick to it. Learn some good online security practices such as not downloading and running any file you find on the internet or is sent to you by email and you'll be relatively safe.

Regarding your original question, both softwares offer 30 days trial... Use them. Do not decide on day 1 or 2. 30 days is often enough to discover any nasty surprises that may not have been obvious in the first few days, such as instabilities or connection problems caused by conflicts in your system.

 

[212eta]

this test proves that Norton has excellent signatures, but it fails once there is no signature.

Real-World Protection Tests do Not only have to do with Signatures.
File Detection Tests have have to do with Signatures.

look at the yellow bar (behavior blocker) from Emsisoft, it is 100 % protection.

100%?
-First of all, there is a 0.1% Compromised.
-As far as the 6.4%, this is User-Depended.
That's why Emsisoft was ranked one-but last
AV-Comparatives - Independent Tests of Anti-Virus Software - Real World Protection Test Overview.

 

[mekelek]

Real-World Protection Tests do Not only have to do with Signatures.
File Detection Tests have have to do with Signatures.

100%?
-First of all, there is a 0.1% Compromised.
-As far as the 6.4%, this is User-Depended.
That's why Emsisoft was ranked one-but last
AV-Comparatives - Independent Tests of Anti-Virus Software - Real World Protection Test Overview.

im confused if i wasn't clear or you're just twisting my words.
im well aware what realworld protection test means, my point is, Norton/Symantec dynamic modules are subpar, and its excellent signatures that save the products. you can look up a sample on virustotal and there is a 85% chance it already has a signature from Symantec while other engines don't have any.
but when you test a sample that has no signature, you will feel like Alice in Wonderland if Sonar message pops up and blocks anything.

 

[Nightwalker]

Real-World Protection Tests do Not only have to do with Signatures.
File Detection Tests have have to do with Signatures.

100%?
-First of all, there is a 0.1% Compromised.
-As far as the 6.4%, this is User-Depended.
That's why Emsisoft was ranked one-but last
AV-Comparatives - Independent Tests of Anti-Virus Software - Real World Protection Test Overview.

0.1 % Compromised is from February to June 2017 test chart and in my opinion it is a great result, just Bitdefender and F-Secure had similar efficacy.
The 100 % protected that I was referring is from the June 2017 test chart that YOU posted, so I am not sure why you are talking about this 0.1 % Compromised.



User-Dependent IS behavior blocker detection in Emsisoft case, so it only serves to demostrate its efficacy, anyway Emsisoft behavior blocker is now automated like others solutions, so no more big yellow bars from now.

 

[Node]

Anti-Malware is quite different from a traditional antivirus, so a better comparison would be Emsisoft Anti-Malware vs. Malwarebytes Anti-Malware I am assuming? I gave my vote but I can't give much of a steady answer; although I much like the products offered by Emsisoft.

 

[Fritz]

0.1 % Compromised is from February to June 2017 test chart and in my opinion it is a great result, just Bitdefender and F-Secure had similar efficacy.

But it still won't treat you like a 3-yr-old, which seems to be a major requirement…

User-Dependent IS behavior blocker detection in Emsisoft case, so it only serves to demostrate its efficacy, anyway Emsisoft behavior blocker is now automated like others solutions, so no more big yellow bars from now.

I wouldn't be surprised if the next argument is that the check box for that isn't grayed out, so the efficacy is still user-dependent… *shrugs*