Norton Security Premium 22.6 真实世界/文件扫描测试

诸葛亮

Real-World Protection Test
Our Real-World Protection Test is currently the most comprehensive and sophisticated anti-malware test available, and uses a large number of test cases. We run this test under Microsoft Windows 7 Home Premium SP1 64-Bit with up-to-date third-party software (such as Adobe Flash, Adobe Acrobat Reader, Java etc.). The results are based on the test set of 843 live test cases (malicious URLs found in the field), consisting of working exploits (i.e. drive-by downloads) and URLs pointing directly to malware. Thus, exactly the same infection vectors are used as a typical user would experience in everyday life. The test cases used cover a wide range of current malicious sites and provide insights into the protection given by the various products (using all their protection features) while the user is surfing the web. The results can be compared with the Real-World Protection Test results1 available on the AV-Comparatives website (for the months of February and March 2016).
Real-World Protection Test Results (February + March)
Total protection rate: 99.3%  (1 miss and 11 user-dependent cases)
Total number of false alarms: 10  (7 FPs and 3 user-dependent FPs)

File Detection Test
The malware sets were frozen on the 24th February 2016 and consisted of 163,763 malware samples. The product had Internet/cloud-access during the test, was last updated on the 3rd of March 2016 and tested under Microsoft Windows 10 64-Bit. The results can be compared with the File Detection test report of March 2016 available on the AV-Comparatives website2.
File Detection Test Results (March)
Total detection rate  99.1%
Number of false alarms: 44 (many)



http://www.av-comparatives.org/w ... antec_201603_en.pdf

nick20010117

看来不错啊

cfhdrty

我发错。。

尘梦幽然

诺顿之前不是已经严正声明退出这个测试了，为什么它还追着诺顿不放呢……

Renascence

这么NB的机构，据说送测还要傲娇一番的，居然也有上赶着去测的产品，最 NB的事情莫过于此了

啥时候上赶着把宇宙第一也测一下呗

所谓不太高级的黑就是这样吧

花心测试

这种测试偶也是感觉不靠谱的，不过貌似诺顿也有点不靠谱了

ccboxes

尘梦幽然 发表于 2016-5-7 17:38
诺顿之前不是已经严正声明退出这个测试了，为什么它还追着诺顿不放呢……

我记得诺顿的数据库更新中包含一个白名单，而在File Detection Test中冻结了更新而不阻止云，这是不是误报如此之高的原因呢。

ccboxes

花心测试 发表于 2016-5-7 22:53
这种测试偶也是感觉不靠谱的，不过貌似诺顿也有点不靠谱了

不过说实话我们也看不到比国际测试更靠谱的了。

尘梦幽然

ccboxes 发表于 2016-5-8 11:23
我记得诺顿的数据库更新中包含一个白名单，而在File Detection Test中冻结了更新而不阻止云，这是不是误 ...

不是的。是因为静态文件扫描测试中提供的误报测试样本是特意构造出来诱导杀软误报的文件。赛门铁克拒绝为这些根本不存在于真实世界、也根本不会影响到客户的文件去优化误报。

欧阳宣

诺顿的面子还是大