Which anti-virus does the least good?

Gotta give Mike over at Techdirt credit for picking this one up. It seems anti-virus software is susceptible to scanning flubs (like skipping malicious files altogether), due mainly to the need to scan so many files so quickly.

But one anti-virus software provider has either not been tested for the exploit, or is NOT susceptible to it.

This list from the researcher is strangely missing Symantec products.

The question becomes…did the researcher forget to test Norton Anti-Virus? If he did test it, why didn’t he mention the fact. And if it did do things differently than the other products on the list, why the hell can’t Symantec seem to make any money!?

Not that I care all that much (for my own good that is). I already visited the istore88x31.

Yes, the previously link is blatant affiliate promotion, but its for your own good. And yes, I use Norton Anti-Virus on my Mac (because I am NOT a stupid Mac-head who thinks he is immune to exploits).


Even though folks are making doomsday predictions regarding Symantec, lets not count them out just yet.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.