said by Nimbus:My understanding of the situation, (I know there have been some recent documented linked posts in other threads currently running and a some months ago on this subject and they all say the same thing), so for now I choose to go with that view that is somewhat different than your POV and the linked content you provided: Thanks for providing that. said by Blogger:
But as discussed in several threads for their current 2013 version they have a problem with a serious aspect of their AV protection. The problem is serious enough that Norton wouldn't test their product with AV Comparatives arguably the premier or most respected AV vendor product tester.
The issue is not a problem with Norton's protection. Norton continues to score highly in real-world tests. The issue is that Symantec contends that the methodology used in one specific AV-Comparatives test does not provide a fair evaluation of what the product actually does, and so gives a misleading result. Because Symantec opted out of that test, they were prevented from participating in any of the other tests. As more products adopt newer strategies to prevent infections, there seems to be a growing recognition among some vendors that standard narrowly-focused detection tests are becoming less reliable indicators of how well a product will actually protect a system.