What's up with AV-Comparatives

[acr1965]

They are supposed to have an On-Demand Comparative out this month but nothing yet. I thought their comparatives came out the first week or so of the month.

[cupez80]

will be out on September :D
http://www.av-comparatives.org/forum/index.php?page=Thread&postID=3024#post3024

[Atomic_Ed]

Anyone know if the new Vipre product will be in the new comparitives?

[The Hammer]

-{ Quote: "Anyone know if the new Vipre product will be in the new comparitives?" }-I doubt they(Sunbelt) would allow it to tested just yet as it's too new.

[Atomic_Ed]

-{ Quote: "I doubt they(Sunbelt) would allow it to tested just yet as it's too new." }-
Your probably right but is it only me that gets excited to see a promising product like Vipre move along as fast as possible? Maybe it is just me but I really went for thier whole design philosophy with this product and am kind of aanxious to actually try it but currently have a few reservations.

* Not fully supported under Vista x64 (No Rootkit Detect)
* No competitive Product upgrade pricing or Discounts
* No Integrated Firewall with x64 support
* Not much real world data on its stability or effectiveness (I know its new but lets see some real testing not just a few magazine/website reviews)

If I were Sunbelt and assuming what I believe of Vipre is correct in that it is a revelotuionary new product, then I would be pushing exposure and testing like crazy right now. For a new product to be reviewed as good as it seems to be thus far, where is the real risk vs the potential rapid growth from the exposure? I mean of course anyone being realistic will understand there will be a few shortcummings found on such a new product but expedient attention by Sunbelt as they are discovered would only serve to bolster the quality of the product and the confidence in the company behind it. I know it would with me. Anyway I sure hope Vipre starts hitting the ground running and if I am right, it has the potential to whiz by the big players very quickly.

[Arup]

None of the major AVs that I know support rootkit detection under x64, Avira included. Part of the reason is till now due to its inherent nature and patch guard, x64 OS is not vulnerable to rootkits. As for firewall, thats another issue as x64 firewall can't have HIPS, they have to work their way around it.

[Flava]

I belive this time kaspersky and bitdefender will rule.

Have been spoken to a bitdefender lab and he said that with Build 11.0.15 bitdefender does not detect more then half of samples then it does with the new "Build V11.0.16" so we will see how bitdefender will score with their new Build this time.

Same with kaspersky their latest Build.

Let's see and wait now for the test and his latest version of Build of those 2 AV's. :)

[emperordarius]

-{ Quote: "

Have been spoken to a bitdefender lab and he said that with Build 11.0.15 bitdefender does not detect more then half of samples then it does with the new "Build V11.0.16" so we will see how bitdefender will score with their new Build this time.

" }-

How come? Don't they use the same definitions?

[Escalader]

-{ Quote: "I belive this time kaspersky and bitdefender will rule.

Have been spoken to a bitdefender lab and he said that with Build 11.0.15 bitdefender does not detect more then half of samples then it does with the new "Build V11.0.16" so we will see how bitdefender will score with their new Build this time.

Same with kaspersky their latest Build.

Let's see and wait now for the test and his latest version of Build of those 2 AV's. :)" }-

Agreed! Let's wait for the results as speculation is wasted time but fun for some;)

For me as before I will look at all results not just BD and KAV. I use Nod and Avira so those I need to compare as well.

[CountryGuy]

If I recall, the speculation posts ran for about six pages before the last results. I think its part of the fun and tradition... ;D

[Escalader]

-{ Quote: "If I recall, the speculation posts ran for about six pages before the last results. I think its part of the fun and tradition... ;D" }-


Yep! No doubt! Enjoy!8)

[Flava]

-{ Quote: "How come? Don't they use the same definitions?" }-

I really dont know, but even the JottiScan website the owner there told me that from old build to the new build V11.0.16 bitdefender detects alot of more.

So let's see at the latest av-comp.... test it shows results from build V11.0.15 and it was pretty good and now soon at September lets see with this new build: V11.0.16"

[bluesprite]

-{ Quote: "I really dont know, but even the JottiScan website the owner there told me that from old build to the new build V11.0.16 bitdefender detects alot of more.

So let's see at the latest av-comp.... test it shows results from build V11.0.15 and it was pretty good and now soon at September lets see with this new build: V11.0.16"" }-

I thought the latest build is 12.0.10.1? ???

[s4u]

I just think Microsoft will be a surprise

[lodore]

-{ Quote: "I just think Microsoft will be a surprise" }-
same
shame their isnt any reliable spyware tests to see how good windows defender really is.
it updates at least 4 times a day. for you have to download the updates manually or wait weeks until they finally appears on windows update.
link (http://www.microsoft.com/security/portal/ADL.aspx#top)

its not completely surprising thou since microsoft did hire some antivirus experts.

[Jin K]

-{ Quote: "I just think Microsoft will be a surprise" }-

for me i think KAV and F-Secure

[s4u]

-{ Quote: "same
shame their isnt any reliable spyware tests to see how good windows defender really is.
it updates at least 4 times a day. for you have to download the updates manually or wait weeks until they finally appears on windows update.
link (http://www.microsoft.com/security/portal/ADL.aspx#top)

its not completely surprising thou since microsoft did hire some antivirus experts." }-
This test wasn't that surprising though
http://www.security.nl/image/1737

[Firecat]

Well, I am thinking that there haven't been a lot of posts from IBK in recent days, so I guess he must be really busy with the tests :)

[Bunkhouse Buck]

The more things change- the more they remain the same. Regardless of the coming test results (and the highest probability is that they show about the same as what they showed in the last test)- one thing is a near certainty. If your AV tested well, the test is valid. If your AV did not test well, the test is flawed.

[Medank]

-{ Quote: "I thought the latest build is 12.0.10.1? ???" }-


It is the latest build 12.0 but av-comp.... testing with 3 month old signatures.
read their FAQ.'

[CountryGuy]

-{ Quote: "The more things change- the more they remain the same. Regardless of the coming test results (and the highest probability is that they show about the same as what they showed in the last test)- one thing is a near certainty. If your AV tested well, the test is valid. If your AV did not test well, the test is flawed." }-

Awww, you're taking all of the fun out of it ;D

[vijayind]

-{ Quote: "This test wasn't that surprising though
http://www.security.nl/image/1737" }-
Surprising to me, Avira & Norton 2009 have same score :o
And KIS 2009 is behind , the yellow banner... And MS despite the hype, is same old ;D

[bluesprite]

-{ Quote: "It is the latest build 12.0 but av-comp.... testing with 3 month old signatures.
read their FAQ.'" }-

That is the case with the Retrospective/ProActive Tests, last of which was in May. It's the On-demand comparative test's turn, which uses latest signatures...

[emperordarius]

-{ Quote: "Surprising to me, Avira & Norton 2009 have same score :o
And KIS 2009 is behind , the yellow banner... And MS despite the hype, is same old ;D" }-


Looks like kis performed bad in the scanning speed and heuristic detection.

[CountryGuy]

-{ Quote: "Surprising to me, Avira & Norton 2009 have same score :o
And KIS 2009 is behind , the yellow banner... And MS despite the hype, is same old ;D" }-

Actually, they got burned in heuristics, scan speed, and response. 4's for detection of malware and spyware. Not the best, but certainly not terrible - And better than last time if I recall. I didn't expect it to top the charts, I just want steady improvement.

[denniz]

The test from AV-org really shows that the many improvements Symantec made to NIS2009 have payed of! 8)

[vijayind]

-{ Quote: "Looks like kis performed bad in the scanning speed and heuristic detection." }-

Both where once the pillars of strength for Kaspersky. ::)
But still not bad, credit to Team Yellow. They have shown why they're market leaders....

[vijayind]

-{ Quote: "Actually, they got burned in heuristics, scan speed, and response. 4's for detection of malware and spyware. Not the best, but certainly not terrible - And better than last time if I recall. I didn't expect it to top the charts, I just want steady improvement." }-
The real surprise package was F-Secure, about which I have been :P
It really made me :-X

The new Hydra engine looks to be good, I actually expected F-Secure to be equal or less the Kaspersky.
Time to look for AV-Comparative for further vindication. Till then, its paper-bag for me.... :lurking:

[CountryGuy]

-{ Quote: "The test from AV-org really shows that the many improvements Symantec made to NIS2009 have payed of! 8)" }-

To be honest, my guess is they finally got a clue that there was an actual THREAT from other AV companies. They had no choice but to rebuild from scratch, and with their resources... Yeah, you can build something good.

Let's just hope they don't get lazy again... And that they fix their 64 bit problems so I can use the software ;D

[emperordarius]

-{ Quote: "Both where once the pillars of strength for Kaspersky. ::)
But still not bad, credit to Team Yellow. They have shown why they're market leaders...." }-

Lol normally Kav has had slow scanning speed and less than 50% heuristic detection(not to be confused with proactive/HIPS one). However it would be interesting to see what would be the scanning speed rating if the files were scanned a second time.

[Fajo]

-{ Quote: "The real surprise package was F-Secure, about which I have been :P
It really made me :-X

The new Hydra engine looks to be good, I actually expected F-Secure to be equal or less the Kaspersky.
Time to look for AV-Comparative for further vindication. Till then, its paper-bag for me.... :lurking:" }-


Link ?? I would like to read it tho I could find nothing on there main page.

[vijayind]

-{ Quote: "Lol normally Kav has had slow scanning speed and less than 50% heuristic detection(not to be confused with proactive/HIPS one). However it would be interesting to see what would be the scanning speed rating if the files were scanned a second time." }-
I was making prudent use of sarcasm.... Don't worry ;D

Even if they scan again, maybe there will be 10-20 % (realistically) increase in speed. But this will also be the case for other vendors like BitDefender, Norton.

Please ... I don't confuse with HIPS, since I don't have HIPS (ok, partial) on my VISTA >:(
But surely you remember the glory days, when AVP, DrWeb and Panda used to have the best heuristic scanners :D

[vijayind]

-{ Quote: "Link ?? I would like to read it tho I could find nothing on there main page." }-
There you go (Translated Dutch to English)
http://66.163.168.225/babelfish/translate_url_content?.intl=us&lp=nl_en&trurl=http%3a%2f%2fsecurity.nl%2fartikel%2f22931%2f1%2f34_virusscanners_getest,_G-Data,_Avira,_F-Secure_en_Norton_bovenaan.html

[denniz]

Besides some weird grammar errors and words in a misplaced order, the translation is actually pretty accurate. :D

[vijayind]

-{ Quote: "Besides some weird grammar errors and words in a misplaced order, the translation is actually pretty accurate. :D" }-
I used Yahoo! Babel Fish (http://babelfish.yahoo.com/) for translation. Its pretty decent.:thumb:

[Medank]

-{ Quote: "I belive this time kaspersky and bitdefender will rule.

Have been spoken to a bitdefender lab and he said that with Build 11.0.15 bitdefender does not detect more then half of samples then it does with the new "Build V11.0.16" so we will see how bitdefender will score with their new Build this time.

Same with kaspersky their latest Build.

Let's see and wait now for the test and his latest version of Build of those 2 AV's. :)" }-


well let's wait and see it's just 2 more days.
But i think kaspersky will do great this time.

[rhuds13]

that link shows bad by NIS2009: http://safeweb.norton.com/report/show?url=http%3A%2F%2F66.163.168.225%2Fbabelfish%2Ftranslate_url_content%3F.intl%3Dus. Is it false pos?

[vijayind]

-{ Quote: "that link shows bad by NIS2009: http://safeweb.norton.com/report/show?url=http%3A%2F%2F66.163.168.225%2Fbabelfish%2Ftranslate_url_content%3F.intl%3Dus. Is it false pos?" }-
Definately FP.
BabelFish is a service of Yahoo!, so I am quite sure its safe.
Norton SafeWeb says:
-{ Quote: "
Drive-By Downloads
Severity: High

6 instances found. Here is a complete list:

Threat Location on Site
C:\WINDOWS\system32\regsvr32.exe
(direct link to a threat on another site):
http://it.babelfish.yahoo.com/translate_url_load
VIRUS:[33737]Downloader.Trojan
(direct link to a threat on another site):
http://it.babelfish.yahoo.com/translate_url_load
C:\KB7082886.exe
(direct link to a threat on another site):
http://it.babelfish.yahoo.com/translate_url_load
C:\WINDOWS\system32\regsvr32.exe
http://66.163.168.225/babelfish/translate_url_content
VIRUS:[33737]Downloader.Trojan
http://66.163.168.225/babelfish/translate_url_content
C:\KB3485580.exe
http://66.163.168.225/babelfish/translate_url_content
Unsolicited Browser Changes

Severity: Medium

2 instances found. Here is a complete list:

Threat Location on Site
IE plugin added
(direct link to a threat on another site):
http://it.babelfish.yahoo.com/translate_url_load
IE plugin added
http://66.163.168.225/babelfish/translate_url_content
" }-

There is no drive-by download or browser change done by Babelfish. But since it acts as as proxy ( to translate ), its been wrongly diagnosed as a threat due to pages it may be translating.

[hex_614]

how about nod32 3.0 ? what's the score?

[Halo326]

NOD32 has gone down the drain.

[lodore]

im interested in how much vba32 and sophos have improved, as well as f-secure,KL and norton.

[Fajo]

-{ Quote: "NOD32 has gone down the drain." }-

Unfortunately. if you ask me Nod Has completely shot them self in the foot.

The ones I'm looking forward to seeing in the tests is NIS and a few of the 2009 products that have also came out. it will be nice to see how much a company has improved. if any at all.

[C.S.J]

to be honest, i forgot all about it, you can always be sure that someone posts the info on here though.

erm, off the top of my head, im waiting for the results of Sophos too.

[ASpace]

-{ Quote: "Unfortunately. if you ask me Nod Has completely shot them self in the foot" }-

It is true they have had better times . It is not possible , however , to be always number 1. We are in a cycle , in an ever-changing condition.

When you go up , somewhere you'll reach the top . If you want to survive you must continue . However , the top is one and the NEXT step right next to the top is DOWN . It will take some time until you get back to the top , but early or later I am sure they will recover their glory (so high from Aupark tower ... this will help :) )

[Fajo]

-{ Quote: "It is true they have had better times . It is not possible , however , to be always number 1. We are in a cycle , in an ever-changing condition.

When you go up , somewhere you'll reach the top . If you want to survive you must continue . However , the top is one and the NEXT step right next to the top is DOWN . It will take some time until you get back to the top , but early or later I am sure they will recover their glory (so high from Aupark tower ... this will help :) )" }-


rofl.... ms paint ftw

[vijayind]

-{ Quote: "It is true they have had better times . It is not possible , however , to be always number 1. We are in a cycle , in an ever-changing condition.

When you go up , somewhere you'll reach the top . If you want to survive you must continue . However , the top is one and the NEXT step right next to the top is DOWN . It will take some time until you get back to the top , but early or later I am sure they will recover their glory (so high from Aupark tower ... this will help :) )" }-
Never realized that the philosophy of 'Circle of Life' is applicable to tech too...;D

[Thankful]

-{ Quote: "NOD32 has gone down the drain." }-
I've been hearing this for three years now and have seen little evidence to support this claim.

[emperordarius]

-{ Quote: "It is true they have had better times . It is not possible , however , to be always number 1. We are in a cycle , in an ever-changing condition.

When you go up , somewhere you'll reach the top . If you want to survive you must continue . However , the top is one and the NEXT step right next to the top is DOWN . It will take some time until you get back to the top , but early or later I am sure they will recover their glory (so high from Aupark tower ... this will help :) )" }-

Mmm...I'd rather represent it like this:
202921

[Fajo]

-{ Quote: "I've been hearing this for three years now and have seen little evidence to support this claim." }-

................. look at the tests.. It has been dropping spots for every test so far for the past year + there is LOTS of evidence to support it heck check the support forum that's the most damning evidence of all.. AV Comparatives test comes out tomorrow have a look.

Don't take me as bashing ESET because I'm really not. I have active Licensees to both its Personal and business editions. the plain fact is eset has to pull them self back up or get mowed over by the competition which if you read the forums is already happening. :-\

[Thankful]

-{ Quote: "................. look at the tests.. It has been dropping spots for every test so far for the past year + there is LOTS of evidence to support it heck check the support forum that's the most damning evidence of all.. AV Comparatives test comes out tomorrow have a look.

Don't take me as bashing ESET because I'm really not. I have active Licensees to both its Personal and business editions. the plain fact is eset has to pull them self back up or get mowed over by the competition which if you read the forums is already happening. :-\" }-
Let's see. Av-Comparatives AV Product of the Year 2006,
Av-Comparatives AV Product of the Year 2007.
Feb 2008 Advanced+, May 2008 Advanced+. What are you looking at???

[emperordarius]

-{ Quote: "Let's see. Av-Comparatives Product of the Year 2006,
Av-Comparatives Product of the Year 2007.
Feb 2008 Advanced+, May 2008 Advanced+. What are you looking at???" }-

What about Av-Test? 94.4%?
Virus.gr- 93.36%

Also if you look at this guys tests:http://www.youtube.com/Mrizos
Which has left his computer unprotected in order to get the samples, Eset scored only 3/5.
Also the lack of a behaviour blocking function reduces a lot it's proactive protection.

[Fajo]

-{ Quote: "Let's see. Av-Comparatives Product of the Year 2006,
Av-Comparatives Product of the Year 2007.
Feb 2008 Advanced+, May 2008 Advanced+. What are you looking at???" }-

Don't look at the Advance+ look at the actual score. and how its out done by free software. also in the ON DEMAND test. it may have a Advance+ but so does 80% of the other titles if you get right down to the % nod is still trailing hard. again. free products are out scoring it.

http://www.virusbtn.com/news/2008/09_02
Another test its % of detection is going down. sorry but the simple fact is nod just like every other AV vendor has to move with the times. Virus writers don't stop and wait for a AV to decide to advance its tech. they force it and if a AV is unwilling to see that the environment is changing they will have no ware to go but down.

And just a FYI its not just detection people have complaints about its the over all service. it has had 3 Definition updates now in 2/3 months that have crippled ENTIRE infrastructures. including the one I run. the loss of man hours and the loss of productivity just is not acceptable anymore plain and simple.

Like I said before I'm not bashing nod I really hope they seriously get there act together. I have been a long time customer and don't want that to change but when an entire network is compromised by 1 piece of software repeatedly, its time to move on.

[Thankful]

-{ Quote: "What about Av-Test? 94.4%?
Virus.gr- 93.36%

Also if you look at this guys tests:http://www.youtube.com/Mrizos
Which has left his computer unprotected in order to get the samples, Eset scored only 3/5.
Also the lack of a behaviour blocking function reduces a lot it's proactive protection." }-
So two consecutive AV products of the year from AV-Comparatives holds no weight? I should be impressed by the quality of work by Mrizos? Is he a professional virus tester?
Does he have the same level of expertise as AV-Comparatives?

[Fajo]

-{ Quote: "So two consecutive AV products of the year from AV-Comparatives holds no weight? I should be impressed by the quality of work by Mrizos? Is he a professional virus tester?
Does he have the same level of expertise as AV-Comparatives?" }-


Sadly, No it don't AV products are always evolving so what was good one month may just suck the next. its the company's ability to keep up with the times and not get stuck in a rut. If they don't do this there reputation will only carry them so far before it destroys them.. look at Norton they had to make some serious changes to stay competitive.

[Thankful]

-{ Quote: "Sadly, No it don't AV products are always evolving so what was good one month may just suck the next. its the company's ability to keep up with the times and not get stuck in a rut. If they don't do this there reputation will only carry them so far before it destroys them.. look at Norton they had to make some serious changes to stay competitive." }-So all the VB100 awards, AV-Comparatives results are meaningless?

[doktornotor]

Amazed that people still keep arguing about all those flawed AV/FW tests. What a waste of time. Those tests have nothing in common with reality; they plain suck... (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/08/09/anti_virus_testing/)

[Fajo]

-{ Quote: "So all the VB100 awards, AV-Comparatives results are meaningless?" }-

Again. AV-Comparatives scores for nod the last year have NOT been that good Look past the advance+ and look at the score. as for VB100 as there have been countless debates on this, the simple look at it is its old its outdated and not up to par with what is offered and standardized now a days. To the point that now even vendors are questioning the test. but of coarse this all matters on the perspective of the test.

[C.S.J]

-{ Quote: "So two consecutive AV products of the year from AV-Comparatives holds no weight? I should be impressed by the quality of work by Mrizos? Is he a professional virus tester?
Does he have the same level of expertise as AV-Comparatives?" }-
half of those products with top level scores in these tests have never added up, and have certainly never met my own expectations.

sometimes, i look at these tests and think "what the flying f..., how in the world....."

Am i a professional virus tester?, nope.

does not matter?...nope, as it is I with the cheque book.

:P

does these testers test 'any' of the malware in their tests?
and my big question is, are they even able to?

we look at these testers as #Professional#, but maybe only the presentation and sample count is.....

[virtumonde]

-{ Quote: "So two consecutive AV products of the year from AV-Comparatives holds no weight? " }-
Hy i don't use a av anymore and i don't care about this tests,not now or even when i had an av.But regarding your question who cares if it was product of the year!!All it matters in av world is "now".
And for the record, Not only Eset support forum are filled with "infected pc".Of course since it's here at Wilders we see them more.

[Fajo]

-{ Quote: "Amazed that people still keep arguing about all those flawed AV/FW tests. What a waste of time. Those tests have nothing in common with reality; they plain suck... (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/08/09/anti_virus_testing/)" }-

to quote my self from that exact same post you made here.
http://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?t=219841&page=2

it's amazing how "tests" are so looked down on when they don't support your point of view.. but when they do. watch out as people tell the world and gloat over the test.

[doktornotor]

-{ Quote: "
it's amazing how "tests" are so looked down on when they don't support your point of view.. but when they do. watch out as people tell the world and gloat over the test." }-

I have no point of view here beyond the fact that the tests plain suck, generally. They don't give me any useful information whatsoever to decide on products. Heck, some of them are so totally retarded they don't even actually test the class of products they claim to test (good morning, Mr. Matoušek (http://www.matousec.com/projects/firewall-challenge/) ::) )

:thumbd:

[Fajo]

-{ Quote: "I have no point of view here beyond the fact that the tests plain suck, generally. They don't give me any useful information whatsoever to decide on products. Heck, some of them are so totally retarded they don't even actually test the class of products they claim to test (good morning, Mr. Matoušek (http://www.matousec.com/projects/firewall-challenge/) ::) )

:thumbd:" }-

On that test. you and me both share the same views. :P

[egghead]

-{ Quote: "Amazed that people still keep arguing about all those flawed AV/FW tests. What a waste of time. Those tests have nothing in common with reality; they plain suck... (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/08/09/anti_virus_testing/)" }-

.....and they suck big time !

You're my man. Thanks for the link: very good article.

There is just one "gold standard" and thats your own experience with an AV.
If AV-X keeps your rig clean then this is the "best" AV there is (for you).

Could not have said this better ::)

[schitzn]

Im a ESET reseller and have been for a year now. I can say ESET does a fantastic job on virus definitions, however in the spyware category it seriously lacks ability. I have a machine running Kaspersky, Avira, AVG, Norton, Spyware Docotor and ESET. I can say by experience that ESET seems to miss many vairants of Virtumonde and a lot of malware. The fact that this recent report positions ESET at the bottom of the list for malware further demonstrates that it needs to pull its finger out.

http://www.virusbtn.com/news/2008/09_02

Avira's scanning speed is a lot faster than ESET's even though their website comparisons fail to even compare against it (marketing I guess). Note that Avira is a very solid product in all tests (vb and av-comparisons) and has been consistently for the last 12 months.

To counter the article above, read this same article criticizing vbulletins methods against av-tests method, published by the same author, but completely taking it the opposite direction. So, who do you trust now?
http://www.channelregister.co.uk/2008/06/09/trend_vb_test_criticism/

Being bias against a particular product (ie. Nearly everyone will agree that Norton sucks) is just an opinion, one needs to substantiate based on fact from many sources. In fact Norton 2009 seems like it may even make the top 3 security products of the year on all reviews/tests (internal/external) done so far in its single week life. If I was to say Norton Internet Security 2009 uses over 50% less RAM than ESET Smart Security, scans faster (file mb/ps), and performs better in malware detections, you'd say Im crazy and opinionated. Beleive it or not, this is the truth, and if you measure this yourself, you will see this is the case also. Its still early days but heres some of external sources I'll use to substantiate my claim:

http://www.virusbtn.com/news/2008/09_02
http://www.symantec.com/norton/new/features/index.jsp
http://www.symantec.com/norton/new/fast/index.jsp
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2330018,00.asp
http://review.zdnet.com/internet-security-firewall/norton-internet-security-2009/4505-3667_16-33246586.html

[Thankful]

Results will vary from test to test. Eset had a higher overall score than F-Secure and Avast! in the February On Demand AV-Comparative. Eset never does as well in any AV-Test.org test.
As far as Norton goes, I tried the 2009 AV and was very impressed. I've always considered Norton a top notch product.

[Medank]

-{ Quote: "Im a ESET reseller and have been for a year now.

In fact Norton 2009 seems like it may even make the top 3 security products of the year on all reviews/tests (internal/external) done so far in its single week life. If I was to say Norton Internet Security 2009 uses over 50% less RAM than ESET Smart Security, scans faster (file mb/ps), and performs better in malware detections, you'd say Im crazy and opinionated. Beleive it or not, this is the truth, " }-


You must be crazy :D

Norton 2009 scans faster then ESET and use 50% less RAM then Eset ?
Performs better in malware detection then ESET? are you sure about Norton 2009?

You must be crazy then :)

[Fajo]

-{ Quote: "You must be crazy :D

Norton 2009 scans faster then ESET and use 50% less RAM then Eset ?
Performs better in malware detection then ESET? are you sure about Norton 2009?

You must be crazy then :)" }-

Sad part about Eset. is simply even the free products out there and what considered a crap product is now doing better then they are. its time to wake up Eset unfortunately you cant stay alive on renewals all your life.

[Thankful]

-{ Quote: "Sad part about Eset. is simply even the free products out there and what considered a crap product is now doing better then they are. its time to wake up Eset unfortunately you cant stay alive on renewals all your life." }-
Where is your proof? The AV-test.org test? What free and crap products are doing better? Repeating misleading information does not make it true.

[Fajo]

-{ Quote: "Where is your proof? The AV-test.org test?" }-
Read the last what 8 posts ? click some of the links. ::) even a Reseller. is preaching the same thing bro. you can't hate people for being aware of whats going on in the AV world.

Again bro if your wanting more just check the official support forums. they have all the info you want.

[Thankful]

-{ Quote: "Read the last what 8 posts ? click some of the links. ::) even a Reseller. is preaching the same thing bro. you can't hate people for being aware of whats going on in the AV world." }-
Again, what free and crap products are doing better than Eset? I don't hate anyone. I am simply asking where is the proof? What are the free and crap products? Are you trolling? Is that it?

[Fajo]

-{ Quote: "Again, what free and crap products are doing better than Eset? I don't hate anyone. I am simply asking where is the proof? What are the free and crap products?" }-

I wont turn this into a A vs B.. but I would be more then happy to PM you things like that if you would like just pass me a PM. 8)


Edit.
In respect to Trolling No not in the least. and I Don't hate Eset. I almost guarantee I have more licensees to that product then you do. my simple complaint is they need to get with the program or be left in the dust. 4 days ago they crippled most company's infrastructure. in the middle of the day. read the support forum on that one. its not this one instance that has shy ed me away its happened more then once in a 3 month period. there is a lot going on at Eset. it's not all just with detection bro.

[Thankful]

-{ Quote: "I wont turn this into a A vs B.. but I would be more then happy to PM you things like that if you would like just pass me a PM. 8)" }-
You continue to bash Eset. All I'm asking for is some proof. If you don't provide any, I assume you are simply trolling.

[Arup]

-{ Quote: "Again, what free and crap products are doing better than Eset? I don't hate anyone. I am simply asking where is the proof? What are the free and crap products? Are you trolling? Is that it?" }-


Avira is free and it ain't crap in any sense, its tops.........point is its not about A and B, its about consistency and in that aspect, Avira has been delivering since the last two years. Does that mean rest of the AVs are crap, far from it, all are legitimately good in their own rights. Whatever works for the user is the mantra here. OTOH, I hate OS hosers and there are some AVs that with every update tend to do serious damage to the OS which would need re-installing the entire OS or worse, loss of precious data.

Btw......Avast is another excellent full fledged free offering which works out quite well in many of the PCs I have installed it in.

[Thankful]

-{ Quote: "Avira is free and it ain't crap in any sense, its tops.........point is its not about A and B, its about consistency and in that aspect, Avira has been delivering since the last two years. Does that mean rest of the AVs are crap, far from it, all are legitimately good in their own rights. Whatever works for the user is the mantra here. OTOH, I hate OS hosers and there are some AVs that with every update tend to do serious damage to the OS which would need re-installing the entire OS or worse, loss of precious data.

Btw......Avast is another excellent full fledged free offering which works out quite well in many of the PCs I have installed it in." }-
I never called any product crap. I'm a fan of many AVs. However, I can only run one at a time.
Concerning updating , Eset has had some problems lately. That can't be disputed. Fortunately, I have not been affected. However, that is a separate issue from detection.

[Arup]

-{ Quote: "I never called any product crap. I'm a fan of many AVs. However, I can only run one at a time.
Concerning updating , Eset has had some problems lately. That can't be disputed. Fortunately, I have not been affected. However, that is a separate issue from detection." }-


Well Avira is free as well.

[Thankful]

-{ Quote: "Well Avira is free as well." }-Great. And your point is?

[Arup]

-{ Quote: "Great. And your point is?" }-


Its top notch as well, since you had asked what is free and top notch, Avira is and to an extent, so is Avast. So one needn't look elsewhere to get proper protection and with a combo of a spyware whic are also available free, one can stay well protected.

[Thankful]

-{ Quote: "Its top notch as well, since you had asked what is free and top notch, Avira is and to an extent, so is Avast. So one needn't look elsewhere to get proper protection and with a combo of a spyware whic are also available free, one can stay well protected." }-
I didn't ask that. The original quote by Fajo :
-{ Quote: "Sad part about Eset. is simply even the free products out there and what considered a crap product is now doing better then they are. its time to wake up Eset unfortunately you cant stay alive on renewals all your life." }-
I was simply asking for proof. I'm still waiting for it. The tests by AV-Comparatives and AV-Test.org were run on AVIRA Premium, not the free version.
Avast! Professional performed better than Eset on the AV-Test.org test but not as well as NOD32 on the February On Demand AV-Comparative. I still haven't seen proof of the 'crap' product performing better than NOD32.

[Fajo]

-{ Quote: "I didn't ask that. The original quote by Fajo :

I was simply asking for proof. I'm still waiting for it. The tests by AV-Comparatives and AV-Test.org were run on AVIRA Premium, not the free version." }-

Sorry, But I'm done repeating my self over and over. ;)

[Thankful]

-{ Quote: "Sorry, But I'm done repeating my self over and over. ;)" }-
You made the original assertion. Not me. Stop spreading garbage.

[Fajo]

-{ Quote: "You made the original assertion. Not me." }-

Re Read the posts you will find your answer. As for Avira running on the premium its the SAME Engine the free detects just as much malware as the paid version does. The difference between the two is the Anti spyware.

In Retrospect the Free Detects (99.8%) along with the paid version.

(Last post from me Unless new info comes to light as this is going nowhere but in circles.)

[Thankful]

-{ Quote: "Re Read the posts you will find your answer. As for Avira running on the premium its the SAME Engine the free detects just as much malware as the paid version does. The difference between the two is the Anti spyware.

In Retrospect the Free Detects (99.8%) along with the paid version.

(Last post from me Unless new info comes to light as this is going nowhere but in circles.)" }-
They are the same for the Av-Test.org test. Probably not for AV-Comparatives.
AVIRA is stronger than ALL AVs, not just NOD32. What other free AVs and 'crap' AV is better than NOD32?

[Arup]

Avast is pretty close to Eset and its free.

[Thankful]

-{ Quote: "Are you suggesting that Avira didn't outperform Nod? Also are you also insinuating that Avast is a crap product? If so you are mistaken, Avast is far from crap, in fact its a genuine and full fledged free offering which comes with protection unmatched by any other free offering." }-
I suggest you read my posts before responding. I said AVIRA outperformed ALL AVs, not just NOD32. Again, I never said AVAST! is a crap product.

[Arup]

So we see that there are good free offerings.

[Thankful]

-{ Quote: "So we see that there are good free offerings." }-
Absolutely.

[Arup]

-{ Quote: "Absolutely." }-


Glad we agree.............

[Medank]

Those are the antivirus that got Advanced+: avast, avg, avira, Gdata, Kaspersky and Symantec

and those are the once that got Advanced: bitdefender, eset, f-secure, norman, sophos, e-scan, trustport

[PnP]

-{ Quote: "Those are the antivirus that got Advanced+: avast, avg, avira, Gdata, Kaspersky and Symantec

and those are the once that got Advanced: bitdefender, eset, f-secure, norman, sophos, e-scan, trustport" }-

sorry where do you read this? thanks

[Medank]

-{ Quote: "sorry where do you read this? thanks" }-


To get an overview of the comparatives, we summarized them in tables. You can find them here.
Our sorting and testing methodology and the FAQ's can be found here (PDF document). [08/2008]

Just click on the red when you are at the antivirus test, scroll down the page and you will find it.

[Sjoeii]

I'm not sure where you are looking but I see nothing

[rothko]

go to http://www.av-comparatives.org/
Click Comparatives on the left
under the list of tests you will see "To get an overview of the comparatives, we summarized them in tables. You can find them here."

interesting to see Microsoft slip from Advanced to Standard when they seem to have been improving greatly of late.

[fried_oyz]

the summarised table is indeed updated. maybe you can try refreshing your browser.

[Sjoeii]

It's probably me than. Can't see it with any browser

[larryb52]

-{ Quote: "Sad part about Eset. is simply even the free products out there and what considered a crap product is now doing better then they are. its time to wake up Eset unfortunately you cant stay alive on renewals all your life." }-


I use ESET it's not as bad as your saying, nothing is as good as it looks or as bad as it seems, tests are not the last word on how a product works on your machine For me I add SAS & I have had good results, thats what counts...

[vijayind]

With all probability, it looks like Avira is going to be the product of the year 2008.

[schitzn]

-{ Quote: "I didn't ask that. The original quote by Fajo :

I was simply asking for proof. I'm still waiting for it. The tests by AV-Comparatives and AV-Test.org were run on AVIRA Premium, not the free version.
Avast! Professional performed better than Eset on the AV-Test.org test but not as well as NOD32 on the February On Demand AV-Comparative. I still haven't seen proof of the 'crap' product performing better than NOD32." }-

AV-Test.org do malware testing (not viruses). AV-Comparatives do not cover spyware in their testing. They plan to do seperate spyware testing next year. Looking at both reports give a ground for both virus and spyware detection rates. ESET seriously needs to do some catching up.

If you read the report and look at the [4] in the report, you would find your answer.


-{ Quote: "I use ESET it's not as bad as your saying, nothing is as good as it looks or as bad as it seems, tests are not the last word on how a product works on your machine For me I add SAS & I have had good results, thats what counts...
" }-

Good Results. Im sorry, but as a IT expert, I need to ensure Im distributing the best products for my end-users. If ESET is missing spyware, and they have kids who are going for those free smileys, then they wont be impressed when they still get infected with MyWebProducts.

These groups that perform this testing aren't being bias. They typically get paid by finding the misses and false positives and selling the av vendors the information. Its a win-win situation for all including us. I do our own testing in-house, we collect virus/spyware variants off machines we service and test the leading products in these online reports. I can substantiate that ESET ranks poorly in spyware just as the tests show. I can also substantiate that Avira does a excellent job, and is improving on its False Positives.

Until you get infected and suffer loss (data, time, money), your not going to be ****ed with your AV. Each user is open to different scope of risk, but having one product covering as close to 100% as possible whilst having the best performance is the goal at the end of the day. What would you prefer, a proven product or a product you like because you've been lucky enough to avoid finding the infections it cant detect.

-{ Quote: "With all probability, it looks like Avira is going to be the product of the year 2008.
Hope for more constructive debate without the attitude
" }-
I think your right, ESET's held the win for many years in a row. I'll make a prediction that Norton 2009 makes a huge comeback for Symantec in 2009.

[larryb52]

-{ Quote: "AV-Test.org do malware testing (not viruses). AV-Comparatives do not cover spyware in their testing. They plan to do seperate spyware testing next year. Looking at both reports give a ground for both virus and spyware detection rates. ESET seriously needs to do some catching up.




Good Results. Im sorry, but as a IT expert, I need to ensure Im distributing the best products for my end-users. If ESET is missing spyware, and they have kids who are going for those free smileys, then they wont be impressed when they still get infected with MyWebProducts.

These groups that perform this testing aren't being bias. They typically get paid by finding the misses and false positives and selling the av vendors the information. Its a win-win situation for all including us. I do our own testing in-house, we collect virus/spyware variants off machines we service and test the leading products in these online reports. I can substantiate that ESET ranks poorly in spyware just as the tests show. I can also substantiate that Avira does a excellent job, and is improving on its False Positives.

Until you get infected and suffer loss (data, time, money), your not going to be ****ed with your AV. Each user is open to different scope of risk, but having one product covering as close to 100% as possible whilst having the best performance is the goal at the end of the day. What would you prefer, a proven product or a product you like because you've been lucky enough to avoid finding the infections it cant detect." }-



well welcome to Wilders FWIW you managed to tick me off in just 12 posts. For your information I don't care if your an IT Specialist or not. What I do know is your not the last word on what 'is' & what 'isn't' a good solution, if you back up you 'opinion' with 'just' tests than that ok but not the final answer. Real life does not mimic a test, the proof is running it on a machine in real world conditions & having your machine running well with out issues...BTW in the future try not being so offensive maybe people will listen more no one like someone to tell them their stupid & he has the answer to their problem...

[Netherlands]

-{ Quote: "It's probably me than. Can't see it with any browser" }-

Kaspersky has done good (advanced +) ;)

Dissapointing is Microsoft with only standard.

Symantec was a surprice to it scored Advanced +

Suprice is also F-secure. It uses kaspersky engine but only scored advanced

VBA has no score for some kind of reason :dry:

Avast and AVG also scores Advanced plus what is a surprice for me.

[Sjoeii]

Good to hear Kaspersky has done well. Unfortunately I'm still not able to see it

[Thankful]

-{ Quote: "
If you read the report and look at the [4] in the report, you would find your answer." }-

I already answered this here:
-{ Quote: "I was simply asking for proof. I'm still waiting for it. The tests by AV-Comparatives and AV-Test.org were run on AVIRA Premium, not the free version.
Avast! Professional performed better than Eset on the AV-Test.org test but not as well as NOD32 on the February On Demand AV-Comparative. I still haven't seen proof of the 'crap' product performing better than NOD32." }-

[schitzn]

-{ Quote: "well welcome to Wilders FWIW you managed to tick me off in just 12 posts. For your information I don't care if your an IT Specialist or not. What I do know is your not the last word on what 'is' & what 'isn't' a good solution, if you back up you 'opinion' with 'just' tests than that ok but not the final answer. Real life does not mimic a test, the proof is running it on a machine in real world conditions & having your machine running well with out issues...BTW in the future try not being so offensive maybe people will listen more no one like someone to tell them their stupid & he has the answer to their problem..." }-

Where have I not substantiated my claims, look at my posts, Do you want me to bring the av-comparative results as well that have been discussed by others? My statements are based on factual information available to you on your internet. If there is something I have not substantiated with evidence, please tell me where and Ill be happy to provide you with my source of information.

Where is the attitude in my post? I said as a IT Expert, meaning I am a IT Expert by trade and my requirement is to ensure Im provisioning the best product to my clients. I didn't infer your a idiot and im the expert. This is the way I HAVE to operate so my clients don't go elsewhere because the solution I sold didnt cover them. Im expressing from my POV and a lot of other IT Experts who work in my field with both business and domestic clients.

You speak about running well without issues, what do you mean by this? I speak highly of Avira and Norton in my recent posts, I assume your referring to these products. Could you substantiate on what issues your having, I would sincerely like to know, this certainly helps me forming a solid ground for the product I select.

[Edwin024]

-{ Quote: "
Symantec was a surprice to it scored Advanced +
" }-

No surprise at all...Just look at the first row...In the first test of 2008 Symantec also had the Advance+

[vijayind]

What happened to VBA32 ?
Did they get kicked out of the test ?

[ren]

I think they do not reach the minimum, so no reward.

[vijayind]

Ooh, thats bad. VBA 32 looked like a product with lot of potennial. Maybe they will take this as shot in the arm and improve ...

[ren]

I may be wrong;D

[larryb52]

-{ Quote: "Where have I not substantiated my claims, look at my posts, Do you want me to bring the av-comparative results as well that have been discussed by others? My statements are based on factual information available to you on your internet. If there is something I have not substantiated with evidence, please tell me where and Ill be happy to provide you with my source of information.

Where is the attitude in my post? I said as a IT Expert, meaning I am a IT Expert by trade and my requirement is to ensure Im provisioning the best product to my clients. I didn't infer your a idiot and im the expert. This is the way I HAVE to operate so my clients don't go elsewhere because the solution I sold didnt cover them. Im expressing from my POV and a lot of other IT Experts who work in my field with both business and domestic clients.

You speak about running well without issues, what do you mean by this? I speak highly of Avira and Norton in my recent posts, I assume your referring to these products. Could you substantiate on what issues your having, I would sincerely like to know, this certainly helps me forming a solid ground for the product I select." }-

I have no issues, you attacked my 'opinion' that ESET works for me, it's my opinion & I'm not chging it because you said so....I know your new to the forum so I'll just say I repect your thoughts but don't expect to have people respect you opinion when you tell them that what they are wrong just because you said so...on tests well they are just that tests, real world is a whole different ballgame if your a true IT EXPERT, ever you would know that...

[schitzn]

-{ Quote: "I have no issues, you attacked my 'opinion' that ESET works for me, it's my opinion & I'm not chging it because you said so....I know your new to the forum so I'll just say I repect your thoughts but don't expect to have people respect you opinion when you tell them that what they are wrong just because you said so...on tests well they are just that tests, real world is a whole different ballgame if your a true IT EXPERT, ever you would know that..." }-

-{ Quote: "
the proof is running it on a machine in real world conditions & having your machine running well with out issues.
" }-

Thanks, I appreciate your reply. Im after constructive criticism. You mention real world conditions and issues with certain products. Im still keen to know what you mean by this, this imo is your opinion and I would like to know how you substantiate this opinion. Ive explain what is real world to me, in a nut-shell its everyone is open to different risks, the way to best minimize this is to have a product with a protection mechanism as close to 100% as possible. Thats real world to me.

Im not here to be respected, Im here to have a constructive debate without personal feelings getting chucked into the threads. Im a geek and I have to have solid grounding for making my security solution decisions. If I can provoke constructive debate against my posts, then it presents an opportunity for me and someone else to gain knowledge that would of otherwise not come about.

[larryb52]

-{ Quote: "Thanks, I appreciate your reply. Im after constructive criticism. You mention real world conditions and issues with certain products. Im still keen to know what you mean by this, this imo is your opinion and I would like to know how you substantiate this opinion. Ive explain what is real world to me, in a nut-shell its everyone is open to different risks, the way to best minimize this is to have a product with a protection mechanism as close to 100% as possible. Thats real world to me.

Im not here to be respected, Im here to have a constructive debate without personal feelings getting chucked into the threads. Im a geek and I have to have solid grounding for making my security solution decisions. If I can provoke constructive debate against my posts, then it presents an opportunity for me and someone else to gain knowledge that would of otherwise not come about." }-


this is a 'discussion' board not a debating club so leave that at the door. I stated it was my opinion & I'll end that there. My facts- my machine is clean & is proven so by running 'other av' scans (online) on it to show it clean. You see I don't think any AV/solution is prefect. FWIW my solution is ESET/ Superantispyware & look n stop...It works for 'me' & I'm the only one I need to keep happy. Again I'm sure your a nice guy so rememeber were all here to learn from other people experiences, were here to help & discuss but if you want to debate, IMHO it's not here...

[schitzn]

-{ Quote: "this is a 'discussion' board not a debating club so leave that at the door. I stated it was my opinion & I'll end that there. My facts- my machine is clean & is proven so by running 'other av' scans (online) on it to show it clean. You see I don't think any AV/solution is prefect. FWIW my solution is ESET/ Superantispyware & look n stop...It works for 'me' & I'm the only one I need to keep happy. Again I'm sure your a nice guy so rememeber were all here to learn from other people experiences, were here to help & discuss but if you want to debate, IMHO it's not here..." }-

Appreciate your response again. Thanks for substantiating how you gain your opinion. I won't post here anything further in a debate manner, seeming your a frequent user and appear to know the forum rules better than me being new. Any recommendations of online forums for constructive debating the quality of security products?

[larryb52]

-{ Quote: "Appreciate your response again. Thanks for substantiating how you gain your opinion. I won't post here anything further in a debate manner, seeming your a frequent user and appear to know the forum rules better than me being new. Any recommendations of online forums for constructive debating the quality of security products?" }-


I'd say stay, I think your imput would be extremely healpful , I know I would value it. No one has the perfect answer and everyone can learn (me too). FWIW your experiences are what's needed here & would be a invalueable tool to anyone. FWIW just don't go into comparision mode such as this vs that, the thread will get shutdown immediately, thanks for you imput & I look forward to deep discussions at a future time, BTW what do you think about who will be in the top 3 on the comparison tests?, thanks and have a nice day...

[schitzn]

-{ Quote: "I'd say stay, I think your imput would be extremely healpful , I know I would value it. No one has the perfect answer and everyone can learn (me too). FWIW your experiences are what's needed here & would be a invalueable tool to anyone. FWIW just don't go into comparision mode such as this vs that, the thread will get shutdown immediately, thanks for you imput & I look forward to deep discussions at a future time, BTW what do you think about who will be in the top 3 on the comparison tests?, thanks and have a nice day..." }-

Top 3 (1.5 hrs and counting down):

3. Norton 2009 (if they measure Norton 09 and not Norton 08), otherwise ESET

2. Kaspersky

1. Avira

I exclude AVK, TrustPort and FSecure from my top 3 listing because they don't have home user orientated products (excluding rebadged ones) and because they are not single standalone scanning engines.

btw, did you know Symantec brought out PC Tools, manufacturer of Spyware Doctor last month.

[larryb52]

Thanks & I helped test Norton09 & IMHO it is a good product & yes Avira will come out on top. I did like F-Secure but it has a few things I didn't like (e-mail scan extremely long) on the rooting for a free solution I'm hoping Avast does well & believe they will...on Pc Tools yes there was a thread the other week reference to them being purchased, Norton tends to suck up the good stuff...

[lodore]

its interesting that f-secure got advanced and kaspersky got advanced plus.

[schitzn]

-{ Quote: "its interesting that f-secure got advanced and kaspersky got advanced plus." }-

F-Secure does not use the same engine as Kaspersky. It uses the AVP engine and signatures, but it lacks the new heuristic which is available since kaspersky v7, which may be why KAV can detect more than F-Secure.

Source:
http://www.av-comparatives.org/forum/index.php?page=Thread&threadID=824&pageNo=2


50 minutes and counting to the results

Did you know email scanning is redundant. In fact its dangerous. A lot of Outlook Express and MS Office Outlook stored folder corruption occurs due to the email scanning in AV's. Its redundant because if the attachment is attempted to be opened after being downloaded, it's scanned by the realtime protection in the av product anyway.

[marciocruz]

~~ direct link to results table image removed - av-comparatives.org policy is that only their main page can be link~~

the results:argh:

[C.S.J]

Avast - yeah, sure! ::)

[ugly]

Report is online now.

[trjam]

looks like Norton shines with high detection and low false positives.

[lodore]

seems that all the 2009 versions where tested.
wow look at norton's score. big congratz to norton.
kaspersky has done well as always. they just need to work on lowering fp's
avast done very well.

btw in the report it says Artemis was not tested in that report and a seprate report will be published on the website soon.
isnt there a seprate report for it already?
or is there gonna be a more updated version now since its nearly final?

[Thankful]

-{ Quote: "looks like Norton shines with high detection and low false positives." }-My thoughts as well.

Another point to make is that many vendors have some trouble with script malware.

[Killtek]

With all the hype over NIS 2009, I was seriously contemplaing on switching over to it. But, these results proves that Avira is top notch, false positives or not, it has the lowest missed sample rating.

Also, would add that it's always in the top 3 results in other tests.

Thank you Avira for an awesome product!

[larryb52]

I had a feeling Avast would do well & kinda surprised at the trojan test on Norton09, Avira #1...I use ESET it came in about where I thought...

[schitzn]

-{ Quote: "looks like Norton shines with high detection and low false positives.." }-

You failed to mention its got the fastest scanning engine of all the antivirus products as well.

[vijayind]

results for Sep 15, 2008 On-Demand test now available at:
~~ direct link to pdf results file removed - av-comparatives.org policy is that only their main page can be link~~

[vijayind]

Really Avast has had stunning results. I am sure v5 will produce even better results.

Symantec is the only product with ADVANCED+ rating and 'few' FPs.

[schitzn]

-{ Quote: "results for Sep 15, 2008 On-Demand test now available at:
~~ direct link to pdf results file removed - av-comparatives.org policy is that only their main page can be link~~" }-

Your a bit late aren't you :)

[Thankful]

-{ Quote: "Really Avast has had stunning results. I am sure v5 will produce even better results.

Symantec is the only product with ADVANCED+ rating and 'few' FPs." }-
Symantec has a history of having few FPs. They put a lot of effort into their new AV and it shows.

[lodore]

-{ Quote: "Symantec has a history of having few FPs. They put a lot of effort into their new AV and it shows." }-
indeed they have put alot of effort in to their 2009 line.
soon symantec endpoint should get the same treatment.
my isp bt gives away norton to its customers atm its 2007 version hopfully it will be upgraded to 2009 asap.

[vijayind]

-{ Quote: "
btw in the report it says Artemis was not tested in that report and a seprate report will be published on the website soon.
isnt there a seprate report for it already?
or is there gonna be a more updated version now since its nearly final?" }-
The earliest review was of Artemis beta.
Now I think they will release report of McAfee Virus Scan Plus 13 which has been released and has Artemis built-in.
Since the beta, McAfee has really cut down on the FPs. But scan speed is sloooow...

[lodore]

-{ Quote: "The earliest review was of Artemis beta.
Now I think they will release report of McAfee Virus Scan Plus 13 which has been released and has Artemis built-in.
Since the beta, McAfee has really cut down on the FPs. But scan speed is sloooow..." }-
ah ha thats what i thought.
scan speed sure is slow 1 hour 30mins to scan my machine.

[larryb52]

digging into the report some things that stick out is tho Avast does well but had 48 FP's & Kaspersky 28, kinda surpising. Also F-secure 90% on trojans, hummm...

[vijayind]

-{ Quote: "ah ha thats what i thought.
scan speed sure is slow 1 hour 30mins to scan my machine." }-
Out-of-Topic:
But I ran it on my external hardisk during McAfee 2009 beta and it took almost 2 hours !!
Plus it had some issues removing potentially unwanted programs (PuPs). But 0 FP and 100 % detection of some 130 odd samples that I had.

May be not accurate since its a external HDD. But other products ( don't want to mention and make this A vs B), did in less.

[vijayind]

-{ Quote: "digging into the report some things that stick out is tho Avast does well but had 48 FP's & Kaspersky 28, kinda surpising. Also F-secure 90% on trojans, hummm..." }-
What I found most surprising was eScan. It uses AVP Kit from Kaspersky, yet it has much lower FPs of 14.

And looks like Sophos went postal ... :D

[Medank]

was it avira that had this time most by 92.2% or was it some other?

[vijayind]

-{ Quote: "was it avira that had this time most by 92.2% or was it some other?" }-
It was avira, but it had detection rate of 99.2/99.6 % this time.

[Killtek]

Avira had the lowest missed sample rate... I'll take that metric over the others.. ;D

[mvdu]

Kaspersky was a bit disappointing. They were always in the top 3. This isn't the only report showing them dropping. Still good, but I'm a little concerned, especially since the new version was tested.

I have seen the false positives that Avira has, yet no one touches them in detection here except for AVK. Norton doing very well again - congrats to them.

[iwod]

Norton 2009 did very well i think.

[norky]

What the heck happened to ESET? They're headed waaaaaaay downhill. I was hoping to use these results to decide between Avira and NIS09 but both look great.

[Don johnson]

ESET has poor script and other malware detection

[Edwin024]

-{ Quote: "indeed they have put alot of effort in to their 2009 line.
soon symantec endpoint should get the same treatment.
my isp bt gives away norton to its customers atm its 2007 version hopfully it will be upgraded to 2009 asap." }-

You can run your license for 2007 on the 2009 version...so if you like it: go for it.

[larryb52]

-{ Quote: "ESET has poor script and other malware detection" }-


yea that bothers me, I guess I'm a safe surfer than because I have been clean but considering I use F-Secure to confirm that I'm not sure of the trojan part since both did 90 % or less, makes you think the Malware writers are winning the war...

[lodore]

-{ Quote: "You can run your license for 2007 on the 2009 version...so if you like it: go for it." }-
yes but its a rebranded version and cant manage to extract a key.

[xan K]

my NOD32 license will expires in about a month and I'm having serious doubts about renewing it seeing their latest results in the comparatives. Avira is starting to sound pretty nice. it's still not easy to leave the AV that has been with me for the last two years.

[Killtek]

-{ Quote: "my NOD32 license will expires in about a month and I'm having serious doubts about renewing it seeing their latest results in the comparatives. Avira is starting to sound pretty nice. it's still not easy to leave the AV that has been with me for the last two years." }-

I too had NOD32 for a year (before they released ESET Smart Suite) and went with Avira, I do not regret that decision!

You basically have two very good choices: Avira and Norton 2009. NIS 2009 is the best performing, but Avira is no slouch when it comes to peformance as well. Avira has the edge with better detection though.

[Firefighter]

-{ Quote: "To get an overview of the comparatives, we summarized them in tables. You can find them here.
Our sorting and testing methodology and the FAQ's can be found here (PDF document). [08/2008]

Just click on the red when you are at the antivirus test, scroll down the page and you will find it." }-

Unfortunately this summary table was false,..

-{ Quote: "Those are the antivirus that got Advanced+: avast, avg, avira, Gdata, Kaspersky and Symantec

and those are the once that got Advanced: bitdefender, eset, f-secure, norman, sophos, e-scan, trustport" }-

...because in the full "On-demand comparative report.pdf" we can see that Trustport achieved the "Advanced+" level.

Best regards,
Firefighter!

PS. Now the summary table is OK!

[JerryM]

I admit that I am surprised at Avast great showing, except the FP. It has always been my fall back AV, but showing up as better than my current application makes it good enough for a primary.

I don't intend to ditch KIS, however.

I guess that the detection rate of the Home edition would be essentially the same as the Pro.

Avira continues to be about the best reasonably available.

My biggest disappointment is F-Secure. This is about the worst showing I have seen for it.

Norton may get more consideration now.

Jerry

[Fajo]

well these test prove it. Norton is now a force to be reckoned with. someone woke the sleeping giant. :o

Avira is where I thought it would be. and some of the other products had dropped as expected. :-\

[larryb52]

-{ Quote: "my NOD32 license will expires in about a month and I'm having serious doubts about renewing it seeing their latest results in the comparatives. Avira is starting to sound pretty nice. it's still not easy to leave the AV that has been with me for the last two years." }-

I've had mine 3 & while I always look around & test others I'm still back to ESET. It's just a test, next time it maybe better & rememeber no AV is perfect you could get brand X on tonight that has 98% detection & still get hit, nothing is perfect...I'm still a believer of layers, I run a antisypware program with it, I feel ok with it...

[Fajo]

-{ Quote: "I've had mine 3 & while I always look around & test others I'm still back to ESET. It's just a test, next time it maybe better & rememeber no AV is perfect you could get brand X on tonight that has 98% detection & still get hit, nothing is perfect...I'm still a believer of layers, I run a antisypware program with it, I feel ok with it..." }-

I agree with you bro..

but one thing I must say I rather have Less of a chance of getting hit. and make that window as small as possible.:)

[fce]

my KIS subscription will expire this week...and this kind of comparative really great help for choosing excellent AV.

i want to replace mine by avira suite, but Kaspersky firewall is far more good compare to Aviras' firewall. (IMO)

[entropism]

I replaced KIS with Avira and Rising's free firewall last year, and I'd never go back. Well, I tried KIS 2009 when it came out, as my license is good until 2011, but I quickly went back to Avira/Rising.

Frankly, your router is doing all of the firewall work, not your software. You just need something small and simple to block outgoing (if that's indeed important to you) and ANY free, reputable firewall can handle that.

[Fajo]

-{ Quote: "my KIS subscription will expire this week...and this kind of comparative really great help for choosing excellent AV.

i want to replace mine by avira suite, but Kaspersky firewall is far more good compare to Aviras' firewall. (IMO)" }-

I use the Suite my self along with a few of my other computers in the house. I just disable the firewall at the install and choose from one of the many out there that do what I need. 8)

[larryb52]

-{ Quote: "I agree with you bro..

but one thing I must say I rather have Less of a chance of getting hit. and make that window as small as possible.:)" }-


than I'd disconnect the internet :) than I have 100 % of NOT getting infected. As I always say these are static tests that are being run & if you were being hit with them all everytime you went on I'd agree on chging, as it is in all the years I have been on the net I have been hit 2, once F-Secure found were trend missed a trojan & the black friday I was running Norton when it stopped an incoming trojan, otherwise I have been extremely lucky, my wife had vundo on hers but Superantispyware removed it and Nod cleaned up the trash it pulled with it...my wife is asking for Norton now tho...

[RejZoR]

AVIRA leading as usual. Very impressive score by avast!. Some more false positives, though i haven't got a single one for more than 6 months. I think it's still a great choice as free antivirus.

[Edwin024]

The free version of Avira has no email guard and antispyware is not as good as the paid one too. I think AV-compartives tested the now called Premium, and that's another story than the free one, in some important aspects.

[Fajo]

-{ Quote: "The free version of Avira has no email guard and antispyware is not as good as the paid one too. I think AV-compartives tested the now called Premium, and that's another story than the free one, in some important aspects." }-

It's the same ENGINE as the free. the free version does not include the spyware engine. what the problem there is what avira considers spyware and what they don't.

Tho I don't know for sure but I don't see any spot in Comparative that shows spyware. so it maybe just malware they are detecting.

[mvdu]

I've decided to try out both Avira and Kaspersky for a bit more and see which AV runs better on my computer. I know Avira scored better in this test, but I recently downloaded some anti-keyloggers to try, and one was a trojan - only Kaspersky detected it at VirusTotal. No AV is 100%.

[trjam]

Norton, hands down. Hated them for so long, but they have done what is needed to wipe the face of the others in bu@@s@@@.

[The Hammer]

-{ Quote: "Avast - yeah, sure! ::)" }-They're bringing their "A" game. Good for them as they have shown improvement in other tests as well.

[Coolio10]

GO NORTON!

Fastest scanning speed!

IN YO FACE doktornotor

[Halo326]

Thanks coolio..............couldn't have said it better myself. I am amazed at how well Norton did. Makes me glad I dumped NOD32 awhile back for Avira. But now all I use is NIS 2009 and thats where I am staying permanently. I am going to buy it when my 15 days are up and you can install it on 2 other pc's. Guess some people are going to get early Christmas presents.

[trjam]

whats so funny is, the AV basically has an internal firewall. So for the most part it is a suite.

Hats off to Avira, geez Stefan, FPs were suppose to be a thing of the past.
Avast, still not sold but looking good.
Eset, no fret, they just got a dose of reality today and pissed off at the same time. A win-win situation. They are going to be back at a kick ass pace. Marcos, good post today.;)

Kaspersky, what can you say, they are heading right on up.
F-Secure- you suck. I still love ya though.

Oh, one last fleating thought the 2 AV vendors who USE to participate, now I honestly see why you dont. At least VBA stays in there fighting and I personally hope that one day they kick all of your asses that do join in to participate.

[mvdu]

Have you found a home with Norton, trjam? If not, no worries. I haven't ruled out Norton myself and have tried most of the AVs at one point or another. :)

On edit, some general comments:

Avira - great job; now just try making those heuristics more accurate
Avast, AVG - nice to see these AVs that offer free versions keeping up
Kaspersky - still trust you even though you fell down in the ranks
Norton - you are now a contender!
Eset - maybe this will provide motivation
McAfee - they better hope Artemis makes a difference.

[trjam]

-{ Quote: "Have you found a home with Norton, trjam? If not, no worries. I haven't ruled out Norton myself and have tried most of the AVs at one point or another. :)" }-
Err, please dont buy it based on anything I said. But yes.;)

[Fajo]

-{ Quote: "whats so funny is, the AV basically has an internal firewall. So for the most part it is a suite.

Hats off to Avira, geez Stefan, FPs were suppose to be a thing of the past.
Avast, still not sold but looking good.
Eset, no fret, they just got a dose of reality today and pissed off at the same time. A win-win situation. They are going to be back at a kick ass pace. Marcos, good post today.;)

Kaspersky, what can you say, they are heading right on up.
F-Secure- you suck. I still love ya though.

Oh, one last fleating thought the 2 AV vendors who USE to participate, now I honestly see why you dont. At least VBA stays in there fighting and I personally hope that one day they kick all of your asses that do join in to participate." }-

Just wanted to point out did you know the price of there software is almost the same as there detention percentage ?

[trjam]

-{ Quote: "Just wanted to point out did you know the price of there software is almost the same as there detention percentage ?" }-
Nah, I still know how to get it for rupees, and that makes it beter. You have to look real hard but 15 bucks isnt bad. Just hate it though based on their trojan detection. About the same as Mcafee.

[Dark Shadow]

Avira keeps rocking and My god Sophos with 117 false positive.

[Arup]

Avira as usual good show.........Avast I expected and good to see Norton getting serious.

[splicer707]

:what:

Tried Avira. Sure it may have really good detection, but how many here get loads of FP's. I did. Safe sites supposedly speading some sort of generic trojan. Rubbish. Then a couple of my xvid coded files, scanned with Dr Web, Kaspersky, AVG and ESET. All good. Scanned with Avira - Oh it has a trojan. I repeat. Rubbish. Then there is the webshield that Avira has, I click on a file for download. AFAIK nothing is happening, then suddenly my download comes down at supersonic speeds. Uh huh. Well written software that. :thumbd:

You guys know what? I'm no expert. No guru crown here.
But I can tell you one thing. Since I've had NOD32 installed I have seen 0 FP's. And 0 infections. I scan my PC with CureIt!, Kaspersky's online scanner, SAS and Malwarebytes' Antimalware; just to verify that NOD32 is working well. 0 viruses, no trojans or any other bad'ies.

So from an end user with no huge technical knowledge, I can say that NOD32 is a winner in my books.

[Fajo]

-{ Quote: ":what:

Tried Avira. Sure it may have really good detection, but how many here get loads of FP's. I did. Safe sites supposedly speading some sort of generic trojan. Rubbish. Then a couple of my xvid coded files, scanned with Dr Web, Kaspersky, AVG and ESET. All good. Scanned with Avira - Oh it has a trojan. I repeat. Rubbish. Then there is the webshield that Avira has, I click on a file for download. AFAIK nothing is happening, then suddenly my download comes down at supersonic speeds. Uh huh. Well written software that. :thumbd:

You guys know what? I'm no expert. No guru crown here.
But I can tell you one thing. Since I've had NOD32 installed I have seen 0 FP's. And 0 infections. I scan my PC with CureIt!, Kaspersky's online scanner, SAS and Malwarebytes' Antimalware; just to verify that NOD32 is working well. 0 viruses, no trojans or any other bad'ies.

So from an end user with no huge technical knowledge, I can say that NOD32 is a winner in my books." }-

No bashing. we don't need the thread closed because people feel like bashing on one and others AV's

On the other note I use avira on a few computers here at the house and I must say I have ran into 1 FP in the number of months I have been using it. I'm also a very heavy Torrent fan. so I constantly have files coming in and out. I'm also on the web and connected to corp networks Thur out the day from my main system so far here 1 FP and it was because of the way it was compiled as it has a backdoor in the program.

[Arup]

I have all settings on high in Avira, so do others here at the forum as reported and yet I hardly get any FPs with one or two occasional one from browser cache. Tell you what, would rather be anal and get FPs than get infected. Never have I seen loads of FP with Avira on the myriads of PCs I have installed it in. Its convenient to put down a genuinely good product with a sweeping remark. If Eset works for you, thats fine, stick with it but don't put down a product that has genuinely and consistently outscored others in every tests thrown at it. Its an insult on the developers who work hard to keep their product top notch. Whats more.......Avira offers its world class detection for free to those who can't buy it and it uses the same signature and detection engine as their premium paid one. I don't see Eset offering anything like that.

[Kerodo]

Avira has come a long way and sits at the top now with the best... Avast is now also making similarly impressive progress and is looking better all the time. 2 great AVs offering free as well as paid, how can anyone complain?

[Fajo]

-{ Quote: "Avira has come a long way and sits at the top now with the best... Avast is now also making similarly impressive progress and is looking better all the time. 2 great AVs offering free as well as paid, how can anyone complain?" }-

the people that PAID for the other AV's.... I'm sorry that one was wide open I had to take it. :argh:

On a serious note tho no reason to shoot any of them down. that last test there all doing pretty well some fell, some climbed such is life in tests. whats nice about it all is you can start to see a pattern. 8) that helps you see the history of a AV in the way its tested. and what progress they are making.

[splicer707]

Lots of people with lots to say. As I am.

What I'm saying is that there is more to the story than high detection.
How is resource usage? Does it cause sluggishness? How many FP's does it report? Can it actually clean infections?

In my experience as a customer, Kaspersky is best at cleaning infections, it also has lower FP's. NOD32 is a balance of detection, cleaning and very low resource usage.

There's my view.

[EliteKiller]

-{ Quote: ":what:

Tried Avira. Sure it may have really good detection, but how many here get loads of FP's. I did. " }-
I don't. I have been using Avira Premium for over a year and rarely see a FP. I find it interesting that Kaspersky has more FP's than Avira in the current on-demand comparative. ;)

[Arup]

-{ Quote: "the people that PAID for the other AV's.... I'm sorry that one was wide open I had to take it. :argh:

On a serious note tho no reason to shoot any of them down. that last test there all doing pretty well some fell, some climbed such is life in tests. whats nice about it all is you can start to see a pattern. 8) that helps you see the history of a AV in the way its tested. and what progress they are making." }-


See thats vanity and sadly...........it has absolutely no cures.

[Fajo]

-{ Quote: "Lots of people with lots to say. As I am.

What I'm saying is that there is more to the story than high detection.
How is resource usage? Does it cause sluggishness? How many FP's does it report? Can it actually clean infections?

In my experience as a customer, Kaspersky is best at cleaning infections, it also has lower FP's. NOD32 is a balance of detection, cleaning and very low resource usage.

There's my view." }-

For Generalization. MOST AV's do the following. a lot of the TOP av's out there have LOW resource usage. between 4-15 megs seems to be the avg.

Most WONT cause sluggishness. I have tested most the ones in that list.

Every AV has False positives. I think some people were pointing out Kaspersky had a bunch this time around. but you know what come next test that can all change. Every av evolves and changes what they feel needs to be changed..

As for cleaning. well my point of view on this has always been I much rather never been infected then have to worry about cleaning. but that's just my view.


EDIT.
I did want to Add one thing.. that makes a difference for me.. Customer Service. its a Must when you deal with company's infrastructures on a daily basis. the one thing no company likes is to have something blow up in there face and have the tech saying I'm waiting on there Response.. that never comes. to me that weighs heavily on who I choose.

[Kerodo]

-{ Quote: "Lots of people with lots to say. As I am.

What I'm saying is that there is more to the story than high detection.
How is resource usage? Does it cause sluggishness? How many FP's does it report? Can it actually clean infections?

In my experience as a customer, Kaspersky is best at cleaning infections, it also has lower FP's. NOD32 is a balance of detection, cleaning and very low resource usage.

There's my view." }-
Good points..... I prefer low FP's myself. And any slowdowns or sluggishness caused by an AV is pretty much intolerable for me also. As for cleaning, it's great if it cleans well, however, I prefer to keep it off the machine to begin with, rather than try to clean up a mess and worry if that succeeded or failed. Faced with infection or problems, I'd prefer to restore an image or even reformat if necessary, so I guess cleaning ability, while nice, is lower on my list of priorities in an AV. I don't much care how much ram the AV uses, having 4 gigs here. It can use 200mb ram for all I care...

Seems to me that many of the AVs are more than adequate now. I don't feel I have to have the best in detection as long as I have very good detection. And I would rather sacrafice a bit of detection if I have to, in order to have less FP's. But many would disagree on that one.... :)

[Arup]

In terms of responsiveness, impact on system and the best track record of minimal issues with updates, Avira has been on top as well, never in its record has it been known to hose the OS and ruin the customer's data unlike others. That also speaks volumes about its developer's quality and commitment.

[MalwareDie]

I find the results for Set B to be interesting. It looks like malware authors are making more malware then ever with less detections from av's.

[TonyW]

-{ Quote: "I find it interesting that Kaspersky has more FP's than Avira in the current on-demand comparative." }-I think the operative term has to be did have. Obviously, this will have been corrected for all vendors that flagged FPs meaning if they were tested again now, those same FPs wouldn't show up.

[Zyrtec]

Hi all,

I have been reading the latest AV-Comparatives report referring to the on-demand detection of some of the main AVs on the market.

However, there is a section of the report I don't fully understand.

There is a row for SCRIPT MALWARE and form what I've seen that row is where nearly all AVs tested by AV-Comparatives get the lower score. Why is that? Don't some AVs have http scanning or script blocking?

What is Script Malware and how can a computer user be affected by it? Borwsing, surfing?

Thanks in advance for your answers since I'm not such an expert on computers.

Carlos

[hex_614]

im still going to use nod32 antivirus, because my subscription is still active. maybe after it expire i go back to avg or norton 2009.

nod32 maybe not the best in this test but for me it runs like heaven in my pc. and very few false positive with only 7 false positive. unlike those in the top like avira which has i think 17 and avast with 48 false positive i think.

i read the report of av comparatives. and concluded that in the overall performance NORTON 2009 stands out at the top. its scanning speed, the fastest. it detection rates is advanced plus, false positive few. so its the overall winner for me.

Kaspersky sucks this time with lots of false positive. so as avira always detecting even if its a legal software.

guys remember this is only detection test. IT'S NOT CLEANING WHAT IT DETECTED. and AVIRA is not good in cleaning remember that.

Avast with advanced + wow! but very many false positive. ha ha ha. avast is a poor antivirus on my opinion, with no proactive protection and keeps on detecting those generic infection with no accurate or specific details on what it detected.

[mvdu]

I wouldn't say Kaspersky sucks in the test. And I haven't had a false positive with the new version. The trust it has built up with me is better than with some high scoring AVs there anyway.

[Fajo]

-{ Quote: "im still going to use nod32 antivirus, because my subscription is still active. maybe after it expire i go back to avg or norton 2009.

nod32 maybe not the best in this test but for me it runs like heaven in my pc. and very few false positive with only 7 false positive. unlike those in the top like avira which has i think 17 and avast with 48 false positive i think.

i read the report of av comparatives. and concluded that in the overall performance NORTON 2009 stands out at the top. its scanning speed, the fastest. it detection rates is advanced plus, false positive few. so its the overall winner for me.

Kaspersky sucks this time with lots of false positive. so as avira always detecting even if its a legal software.

guys remember this is only detection test. IT'S NOT CLEANING WHAT IT DETECTED. and AVIRA is not good in cleaning remember that.

Avast with advanced + wow! but very many false positive. ha ha ha. avast is a poor antivirus on my opinion, with no proactive protection and keeps on detecting those generic infection with no accurate or specific details on what it detected." }-

Wow.. so bash everything that did better in the tests then your AV. that sounds mature. and just a FYI you can ONLY CLEAN what you can DETECT. :dry:

If you have crap detection cleaning mean's jack. I much rather stop it at the door before letting it roam my house so to speak. trusty old back up software is the ultimate cleaning. 8)

All the AV's have + and - to them. don't be suckered it saying this one is worst then this one or vice versa. use what works for you but don't knock what you don't understand. ::)

[Macstorm]

Despite test results I'll stick with FS, have blind faith in the DeepGuard technology, it performs verrry well in my own in-house 'minitests' ;)

Straight detection comparative, no HIPS was tested. Next year, hopefully..

I'm looking forward for the english version of GData AV but don't like the fact that KAV engine was excluded from their 2009 products :isay:

Good job Avira, as always :thumb:

[RejZoR]

-{ Quote: "
Avast with advanced + wow! but very many false positive. ha ha ha. avast is a poor antivirus on my opinion, with no proactive protection and keeps on detecting those generic infection with no accurate or specific details on what it detected." }-

Funny. Then why i haven't got a single false positive for more than 6 months (if not far more). Yeah, not a single one. Ha ha ha...

No proactive protection? Funny, it scored even better than some that have "Heuristics" checkbox available in options. Ha ha ha x2...
Just wait for avast! 5 with behavior part integrated. It will most probably pwn (even more) left and right just like Kaspersky does with their behavior detection.
Too bad anyone rarely tests this on-access part since it's difficult and lenghty...

No accurate details? So name Win32:Mutambe-35745 (i just made this one up) actually tells you more than Win32:Trojan-gen ? I think not. There is absolutely NO standardized rules for naming schemes so each makes its own.
If they want they can call ALL malware as Win32:Malware. It really wouldn't make much of a difference.
Ha ha ha x3...

[apm]

Avira,AVG,Norman,Trustport detect Dr.web package as malware:o

[Arup]

Avast never gave me or other of its users FP......calling it crap just because it whupped your preferred AV is a classic case of sour grapes. Avast has had proactive for a while and by the looks of it, it has been greatly improving so kudos to team Avast for that.

[Atomic_Ed]

-{ Quote: "im still going to use nod32 antivirus, because my subscription is still active. maybe after it expire i go back to avg or norton 2009.

nod32 maybe not the best in this test but for me it runs like heaven in my pc. and very few false positive with only 7 false positive. unlike those in the top like avira which has i think 17 and avast with 48 false positive i think.

i read the report of av comparatives. and concluded that in the overall performance NORTON 2009 stands out at the top. its scanning speed, the fastest. it detection rates is advanced plus, false positive few. so its the overall winner for me.

Kaspersky sucks this time with lots of false positive. so as avira always detecting even if its a legal software.

guys remember this is only detection test. IT'S NOT CLEANING WHAT IT DETECTED. and AVIRA is not good in cleaning remember that.

Avast with advanced + wow! but very many false positive. ha ha ha. avast is a poor antivirus on my opinion, with no proactive protection and keeps on detecting those generic infection with no accurate or specific details on what it detected." }-
Actually I disagree with your comments on Avast. I ran it for a year as my main AV and it did a great job for me without a single infection on my machine. It detected things just fine including a few things nod32 missed. In the year I ran it, I had one false positive and that was fixed incredibly fast one I report it to Avast. Overall my personal opinion of Avast is that it is for some reason underestimated by many. Not sure why because I think it is a good product and would haveno problem using it on my machine if I wasn't already running Vipre.

[hex_614]

maybe your using internet rarely with avast so your not getting false positive a lot. it was just july when my friend got 5 false positive with avast. it can even detect the xp antivirus 2009 last sept 05. and after successful update it can't clean what it detects. ha ha ha. avast very poor with 40+ FALSE POSITIVE.

READ AV COMPARATIVES COMPLETE REVIEW, NOT JUST THE RATINGS. THEY STATED THAT RATINGS ARE BASED ON DETECTIONS, IF YOUR AVAST DETECTS ALL EVEN WITH THAT FP IT WILL STILL GET HIGH SCORES FOR DETECTIONS.

Just look at Virus Bulletin, avast only past just this august 2008, look at the previous 2 test last june and feb. they failed. ha ha ha... again;D

[hex_614]

-{ Quote: "Wow.. so bash everything that did better in the tests then your AV. that sounds mature. and just a FYI you can ONLY CLEAN what you can DETECT. :dry:

If you have crap detection cleaning mean's jack. I much rather stop it at the door before letting it roam my house so to speak. trusty old back up software is the ultimate cleaning. 8)

All the AV's have + and - to them. don't be suckered it saying this one is worst then this one or vice versa. use what works for you but don't knock what you don't understand. ::)" }-

WELL AVIRA FAILED TO CLEAN WHAT IT DETECTS. THAT'S A FACT. AVIRA ONLY DETECTS AND AFTER THAT? WHAT HAPPENS? YOUR PC NEEDS REFORMAT. HA HA HA

[saberfox]

-{ Quote: "maybe your using internet rarely with avast so your not getting false positive a lot." }-
Or maybe you're completely wrong. Stop making up excuses to justify your fallacious statements.

But then again, when a FREE product detects almost 50,000 more viruses than another product that you paid $60 for, I can understand why you're crying so hard...

[Atomic_Ed]

-{ Quote: "Or maybe you're completely wrong. Stop making up excuses to justify your fallacious statements.

But then again, when a FREE product detects almost 50,000 more viruses than another product that you paid $60 for, I can understand why you're crying so hard..." }-
Lol! I think you hit the nail on the head. BTW.. Maybe he should know I have an always on high speed connection to the Internet.. :)

[saberfox]

And since we're on the subject of FPs, let's just say that avast!, unlike some other paid-for product that costs $60 and detects less viruses, has yet to bring the networks of its corporate customers around the world to their knees by two incidents of mass FPs in as many months. :argh:

[BlueZannetti]

To all:

A number of off topic posts have been removed. Let's keep the discussion focused on the topic and leave the mindless back and forth blather behind.

Blue

[MrGSM]

The problem with ESET is that update contain fews viruses in detection.
some updates contain 3 viruses...
How can this antivirus know the thousands of virus that appear every day...?

[doktornotor]

-{ Quote: "The problem with ESET is that update contain fews viruses in detection.
some updates contain 3 viruses...
How can this antivirus know the thousands of virus that appear every day...?" }-

Number of signatures != number of detected malware. (Other than that, I very much doubt there are thousands of new viruses created every day, plus tons of them are just variants of the old stuff.)

[Arup]

-{ Quote: "Or maybe you're completely wrong. Stop making up excuses to justify your fallacious statements.

But then again, when a FREE product detects almost 50,000 more viruses than another product that you paid $60 for, I can understand why you're crying so hard..." }-


Thats the crux of the problem, how dare a free AV outscore a highly paid one.......its preposterous;D

[Dark Shadow]

-{ Quote: "Actually I disagree with your comments on Avast. I ran it for a year as my main AV and it did a great job for me without a single infection on my machine. It detected things just fine including a few things nod32 missed. In the year I ran it, I had one false positive and that was fixed incredibly fast one I report it to Avast. Overall my personal opinion of Avast is that it is for some reason underestimated by many. Not sure why because I think it is a good product and would haveno problem using it on my machine if I wasn't already running Vipre." }-
I agree,I had used Avast in the past from its first creation yr after yr minus any infection.In fact the times I had been infected was using a paid AV but that also may have been from a more adventures surfing or downloading.I also seen avast detect and clean with its boot scan a nice feature indeed.That said folks should not sell avast short its offered protection for free or paid it updates are effortless and the company is always improving on its product.

[schitzn]

This just happened to me tonight, no word of a lie.

I read that you can use the OEM 2008 license to activate the trial 2009 Norton. It worked a charm.

I already use Avira Premium and shortly after installing Norton 09, its SONAR reported a trojan, I thought FP straight away. I had a look at "Security History" and it shows it made communication with Nortons server sending a sample and thereafter reported the threat to me. Looking at the details, it was a exe in a hidden folder in my recycle bin. There was also a registry key under HKLM\Software\Microsoft\ActiveSetup\InstalledComponents\{CLSID}. It reaffirms to me that being already infected does not always give solid signs. I have no idea what this thing does but knowing it was in memory and running without consent is not a good thing.

[Dark Shadow]

-{ Quote: "This just happened to me tonight, no word of a lie.

I read that you can use the OEM 2008 license to activate the trial 2009 Norton. It worked a charm.

I already use Avira Premium and shortly after installing Norton 09, its SONAR reported a trojan, I thought FP straight away. I had a look at "Security History" and it shows it made communication with Nortons server sending a sample and thereafter reported the threat to me. Looking at the details, it was a exe in a hidden folder in my recycle bin. There was also a registry key under HKLM\Software\Microsoft\ActiveSetup\InstalledComponents\{CLSID}. It reaffirms to me that being already infected does not always give solid signs. I have no idea what this thing does but knowing it was in memory and running without consent is not a good thing." }-
So If I read correct you are saying Avira had missed what norton has found.

[Stijnson]

-{ Quote: "This just happened to me tonight, no word of a lie.

I read that you can use the OEM 2008 license to activate the trial 2009 Norton. It worked a charm.

I already use Avira Premium and shortly after installing Norton 09, its SONAR reported a trojan, I thought FP straight away. I had a look at "Security History" and it shows it made communication with Nortons server sending a sample and thereafter reported the threat to me. Looking at the details, it was a exe in a hidden folder in my recycle bin. There was also a registry key under HKLM\Software\Microsoft\ActiveSetup\InstalledComponents\{CLSID}. It reaffirms to me that being already infected does not always give solid signs. I have no idea what this thing does but knowing it was in memory and running without consent is not a good thing." }-

Are you also running programs like SAS or MBAM?

[andypayne]

Hi, the rating for that site has now been corrected on Norton Safe Web -

http://safeweb.norton.com/report/show?url=http%3A%2F%2F66.163.168.225%2Fbabelfish%2Ftranslate_url_content%3F.intl%3Dus


-{ Quote: "Definately FP.
BabelFish is a service of Yahoo!, so I am quite sure its safe.
Norton SafeWeb says:


There is no drive-by download or browser change done by Babelfish. But since it acts as as proxy ( to translate ), its been wrongly diagnosed as a threat due to pages it may be translating." }-

[larryb52]

-{ Quote: "Avira has come a long way and sits at the top now with the best... Avast is now also making similarly impressive progress and is looking better all the time. 2 great AVs offering free as well as paid, how can anyone complain?" }-


I too have used Avira with many FP's a newbee would delete good files, I knew better I wouldn't recommend it, Avast has the same FP's I was shocked at how many, it's easy to get good detection just create a AV that says everything is a trojan & the user can decide,that is not good software, Also remember that every user & machine is different...

[Arup]

Well its better than creating one that doesn't detect any ;)

[denniz]

-{ Quote: "With all the hype over NIS 2009, I was seriously contemplaing on switching over to it. But, these results proves that Avira is top notch, false positives or not, it has the lowest missed sample rating.

Also, would add that it's always in the top 3 results in other tests.

Thank you Avira for an awesome product!" }-

You seem to forget that with maximum settings Norton had a 99% detection rate! With default settings it had a score of 97,4%. And even with maximum settings Norton had not many false positives!

[FRug]

denniz: yes, but compare symantecs proactive detection (previous test) to that of some of the high-scorers there. Almost no proactive detection also means lesser risk of false positives.

[trjam]

If you also look at that last report, there is a note that Kaspersky 8 and Nortons newer technology would have scored 42 percent and 41 percent respectively. With the possibility of low FPs for both this would have rasied them to Advance for proactive detection.

[denniz]

-{ Quote: "denniz: yes, but compare symantecs proactive detection (previous test) to that of some of the high-scorers there. Almost no proactive detection also means lesser risk of false positives." }-

Well the previous proactive test wasn't a very in depth test. Here's a noted quote from the previous proactive test of May 2008:

-{ Quote: "
NOTE: Due some changes in the test, this time the results show only how the products scored at a specific (quite short) time and may due that not necessarly apply in general. Please read the report for details. Next time the test results will be again more meaningful, by including a larger quantity of samples and 2 different time-frames.
" }-

Also Norton 2009 wasn't tested, but Norton 2008 was. So until I see the proactive test results of November 2008 in which Norton 2009 will be tested, I will withdraw from making any conclusions about whether or not Norton 2009 has decent proactive detection.

[trjam]

-{ Quote: "
Also Norton 2009 wasn't tested, but Norton 2008 was. So until I see the proactive test results of November 2008 in which Norton 2009 will be tested, I will withdraw from making any conclusions about whether or not Norton 2009 has decent proactive detection." }-

Agree, but that may hold true for changes or the possibility of them, for all vendors.

[vijayind]

-{ Quote: "Hi, the rating for that site has now been corrected on Norton Safe Web -

http://safeweb.norton.com/report/show?url=http%3A%2F%2F66.163.168.225%2Fbabelfish%2Ftranslate_url_content%3F.intl%3Dus" }-
Thanks for the update, Andy :thumb:

And welcome to Wilder's.

[Fajo]

-{ Quote: "I too have used Avira with many FP's a newbee would delete good files, I knew better I wouldn't recommend it, Avast has the same FP's I was shocked at how many, it's easy to get good detection just create a AV that says everything is a trojan & the user can decide,that is not good software, Also remember that every user & machine is different..." }-

I would rather have the 17 FP's that Avira got in the test.. then the +70K of missed samples.. But that's just IMO. :dry:

[C.S.J]

-{ Quote: "I would rather have the 17 FP's that Avira got in the test.. then the +70K of missed samples.. But that's just IMO. :dry:" }-
of course 'you' would, but are you even aware of the technology in your own av, you never ask yourself that?

[saberfox]

-{ Quote: "of course 'you' would, but are you even aware of the technology in your own av, you never ask yourself that?" }-
I'm not sure why that is even relevant. Who cares what the technology is, as long as it works?

[Arup]

Who cares about tech.......it works and works every time tests are thrown at it, thats all that matters in at the end of the day.

[trjam]

-{ Quote: "Who cares about tech.......it works and works every time tests are thrown at it, thats all that matters in at the end of the day." }-
Ok, so it detects "everything" cleans "nothing" and due to the high number of FPs you may be deleting something that might just make your PC worthless. Yep, winner in my book.:-\

[lodore]

-{ Quote: "I'm not sure why that is even relevant. Who cares what the technology is, as long as it works?" }-
well there is some reasons. you have got one approach which means the companie are lazy and just add basically anything to the database and detect anything packed as malware. and malware from tests they just get computers to add it to the database. a human doesnt even bother to look at it. forget about removal of malware on an already infected machine.
the above refers to avira
the below refers to companies such as drweb,kaspersky labs and f-secure. there is more but that was a few examples.
or you get a dedicated companie that work hard to make sure there customers are protected and optimize there datebase.
they dont cheat and detect anything packed as malware. they work hard. everytime someone sends in a sample a human analyses it and sends an email back to the person who sends it in saying if its malware or not and the name. if its an fp the user will be told and also when it will be fixed normally in the next update.

[Arup]

-{ Quote: "Ok, so it detects "everything" cleans "nothing" and due to the high number of FPs you may be deleting something that might just make your PC worthless. Yep, winner in my book.:-\" }-


17 FPs and yes, after running it for years on various PCs, they all got hosed as it deleted system files.....dunno how I manage to make it to Wilders everyday........and btw, according to tests it detects and cleans as well. You can't clean if you don't detect ;) Since you don't detect, you remain happy with a false sense of security thinking your are all clean and safe.;D Avira is lazy, they keep winning every time and has the best detection, so if thats lassitude.....wonder what hard work will bring.

[saberfox]

-{ Quote: "Ok, so it detects "everything" cleans "nothing" and due to the high number of FPs you may be deleting something that might just make your PC worthless. Yep, winner in my book.:-\" }-
You know, it's okay to have a personal opinion, but whenever one resorts to gross exaggerations to try to peddle that opinion, that's when their credibility really takes a nosedive...

[saberfox]

-{ Quote: "well there is some reasons. you have got one approach which means the companie are lazy and just add basically anything to the database and detect anything packed as malware.
IMO the above is avira
the below im talking about companies such as kaspersky lab and drweb and f-secure.
or you get a dedicated companie that work hard to make sure there customers are protected and only allow stuff that is definatly in there database." }-
If they're lazy, why would they add everything? That seems to go against the very definition of lazy. They're so lazy that they constantly update their database with new signatures... hmm.

And why is detecting anything packed as malware such a bad thing? The approach seems to work, and it's not like Avira is topping the FP count either.

[lodore]

-{ Quote: "If they're lazy, why would they add everything? That seems to go against the very definition of lazy. They're so lazy that they constantly update their database with new signatures... hmm.

And why is detecting anything packed as malware such a bad thing? The approach seems to work, and it's not like Avira is topping the FP count either." }-
as i pointed out using a computer to add basically anything to the database,that is lazy.

[saberfox]

-{ Quote: "as i pointed out using a computer to add basically anything to the database,that is lazy." }-
Again, why would I care?

The approach works. They're constantly at the top of tests, have a reasonably low FP count, and their heuristics are nigh well unmatched. I think I can live with a bit of "laziness" on their part.

[doktornotor]

-{ Quote: "Again, why would I care?

The approach works. They're constantly at the top of tests, have a reasonably low FP count, and their heuristics are nigh well unmatched. I think I can live with a bit of "laziness" on their part." }-

To make things clear - Avira is NOT "using a computer to add basically anything to the database", that's pure nonsense, end of story. In fact, I don't know any vendor who'd just add "basically anything" submitted automatically, the guy who's claiming this should either provide some specifics or not spread FUD. ::)

[virtumonde]

-{ Quote: "as i pointed out using a computer to add basically anything to the database,that is lazy." }-
Yes but how many legitimate software uses those packers?This is where avira is good,i agree with the FP's but the only place i seen FP's from avira is keygens.It wasn't as many as now a few months ago,but i agree with saberfox.Avira is not on a rampage against legitimate software,there are other products with more FP's.

[risl]

-{ Quote: "To make things clear - Avira is NOT "using a computer to add basically anything to the database", that's pure nonsense, end of story. In fact, I don't know any vendor who'd just add "basically anything" submitted automatically, the guy who's claiming this should either provide some specifics or not spread FUD. ::)" }-

There are companies that add signatures automatically if some bigger/famous vendors detects it. Ikarus, VBA32, Rising for example. They don't even bother using different names for the detections. This leads to many FP's and crappy signatures because the sigs are created by computers/automated systems. Probably by simply reading the file from memory or dumping it from memory, and then selecting some certain number of bytes/string and use it as a signature.

[doktornotor]

-{ Quote: "There are companies that add signatures automatically if some bigger/famous vendors detects it. Ikarus, VBA32, Rising for example. They don't even bother using different names for the detections. This leads to many FP's and crappy signatures because the sigs are created by computers/automated systems. Probably by simply reading the file from memory or dumping it from memory, and then selecting some certain number of bytes/string and use it as a signature." }-

Well, that's something different that using "anything submitted" ;) Ikarus has horrible issues w/ FPs, VBA32 - well uh, their detection rate is a big fail regardless how many signatures they "steal" from other products, so I wouldn't use it FPs or not... Rising, didn't have time to test.

[Stefan Kurtzhals]

-{ Quote: "the below refers to companies such as drweb,kaspersky labs and f-secure. there is more but that was a few examples.
or you get a dedicated companie that work hard to make sure there customers are protected and optimize there datebase.
they dont cheat and detect anything packed as malware." }-

Nonsense. Dr.Web has even more packer based generic detections than Avira. Over 600, most likely over 650 by now. Avira has less than 250. KAV has plenty of packer/cryptor detection. NOD32 has, so does Bitdefender, VBA32, Symantec, Mcafee and all the others. You are not able to tell if it's a packer/cryptor based detection by just looking at the name! Because there is no "Packer", "Crypt" or something like it in the malware name that does not mean the detection is not cryptor based. Maybe you should perform some tests how the actual detection works... You would be surprised...

BTW, if you require your AV to perform cleaning of your system, it already has failed you. What good is cleaning malware, when the cleaning just kills the malware files and registry keys? What about your stolen private data, credit card numbers, serials, login/accounts? Can those fine repairs fix those things too?

Avast and no fps? In my daily work with malware & clean stuff, I see plenty of Avast FPs.

[Fly]

It's a bit difficult to understand why so many people here get infected by viruses, I've had only only incident in the past 12 months when a malicious piece of javascript tried to download a trojan, but that was caught in time. Even before that I've encountered only about 3 infections, with OLD antivirus software.

I was using the McAfee Virusscan Plus at the time, I know it's not very popular here. I still have it, for lack of something better (keeping in mind my current hardware and software setup) and that I've already paid for it.

On the other hand, the amount of spyware and adware infections was staggering, except for the past year or so, when I ditched the Spyware Doctor and got a more sensible setup, which currently includes McAfee and the reviled Spy Sweeper 5.5.7. Plus I added some common sense.

I suppose most people here know a 'lot' about security, so I wonder how they get their antivirus to detect infections ?? A year ago I knew only a fraction of what I know now.

[lodore]

-{ Quote: "Nonsense. Dr.Web has even more packer based generic detections than Avira. Over 600, most likely over 650 by now. Avira has less than 250. KAV has plenty of packer/cryptor detection. NOD32 has, so does Bitdefender, VBA32, Symantec, Mcafee and all the others. You are not able to tell if it's a packer/cryptor based detection by just looking at the name! Because there is no "Packer", "Crypt" or something like it in the malware name that does not mean the detection is not cryptor based. Maybe you should perform some tests how the actual detection works... You would be surprised...

BTW, if you require your AV to perform cleaning of your system, it already has failed you. What good is cleaning malware, when the cleaning just kills the malware files and registry keys? What about your stolen private data, credit card numbers, serials, login/accounts? Can those fine repairs fix those things too?

Avast and no fps? In my daily work with malware & clean stuff, I see plenty of Avast FPs." }-
Hello,
i wondered if you would show up.
so you think detecting everything is the answer?
FYI kaspersky and before that f-secure have never failed me.

i never said companies like drweb and kaspersky dont use packer/cryptor detection.

the other day kaspersky detected malware by heristic detection. i sent it to kaspersky to get it checked. turns out they already had a signiture detection for it and told me to update the program. the signiture detection has a proper name rather than trojan.gen and also it means kaspersky can add removal routines for that malware.

i remember when drweb was talking about being the first to detect and remove a certain rootkit. you just added a rootkit.gen detection for it. that isnt useful at all. if that is found in an on demand scan and avira cannot clean it the user has no idea which rootkit it is so cant find a removal tool.

thats if it can even detect the rootkit when it is active.

99percent of home users dont have imaging software so they cannot just rollback to before the rootkit infected the computer. so if you cannot remove the malware it will continue to steal information from the user such as credit card details etc. thats even worse.

do you really think you can detect all malware all the time without any fp's which could be the only version of that file?
get real malware is on the increase all the time so at some point a user will get infected wont have a backup of the computer and will need to clean the machine.

[RejZoR]

Any AV has false positives. Though i all these years with avast! i had maybe 4 or 5 of them in real world conditions and i try quiet a lot of programs.
And they always got fixed in day or two tops.

[C.S.J]

-{ Quote: "Nonsense. Dr.Web has even more packer based generic detections than Avira. Over 600, most likely over 650 by now. Avira has less than 250. KAV has plenty of packer/cryptor detection. NOD32 has, so does Bitdefender, VBA32, Symantec, Mcafee and all the others. You are not able to tell if it's a packer/cryptor based detection by just looking at the name! Because there is no "Packer", "Crypt" or something like it in the malware name that does not mean the detection is not cryptor based. Maybe you should perform some tests how the actual detection works... You would be surprised...

BTW, if you require your AV to perform cleaning of your system, it already has failed you. What good is cleaning malware, when the cleaning just kills the malware files and registry keys? What about your stolen private data, credit card numbers, serials, login/accounts? Can those fine repairs fix those things too?

Avast and no fps? In my daily work with malware & clean stuff, I see plenty of Avast FPs." }-
if you require cleaning?........ says it all.

sorry, but you product misses more than IBK seems to think.

im sure the other AV's could come on here and slate your methods of 'protection', although wouldn't this then be labelled as un-professional?

I Think your falseifying your 'true protection'.

[C.S.J]

also, no AV with 'many' Fp's on IBK's test should be given Advanced+

looks like he has changed his methods too.

on the proactive test, 'many' FP's would lower an AV rating to STANDARD, so i wouldnt be too happy with your certifcation either.

[C.S.J]

-{ Quote: "

BTW, if you require your AV to perform cleaning of your system, it already has failed you." }-
and your product has an on-demand scanner why? ::)

[trjam]

Damn Stefan, I think what most are saying is, detect and clean go hand and hand, seamlessly. Detect, then clean all remnants. This is exactly what has gotten my goat with Avira for a long time. Put all the BS aside. Avira looks through a very narrow telescope, the suite is proof of that. Mele tried, and I ridiculed him, to try and get you folks to make better what you had, but no one heard him. Cleaning doesnt mean you are screwed. Geez, you are such a great gentleman and I respect the hell out of you, so this is hard. Enjoy the view at the top, because it is a hard damn fall on the way down. Eset at least caught themselves half way down.

And screw my avatar. Lets settle this blooming issue once and for all. Read my lips please. I use the Eset Suite. Not AVIRA, not NORTON, not F-SECURE, but Eset.

[trjam]

-{ Quote: "and your product has an on-demand scanner why? ::)" }-
I hate to say this, but , ROTFLMAO

[Sjoeii]

-{ Quote: "Damn Stefan, I think what most are saying is, detect and clean go hand and hand, seamlessly. Detect, then clean all remnants. This is exactly what has gotten my goat with Avira for a long time. Put all the BS aside. Avira looks through a very narrow telescope, the suite is proof of that. Mele tried, and I ridiculed him, to try and get you folks to make better what you had, but no one heard him. Cleaning doesnt mean you are screwed. Geez, you are such a great gentleman and I respect the hell out of you, so this is hard. Enjoy the view at the top, because it is a hard damn fall on the way down. Eset at least caught themselves half way down.

And screw my avatar. Lets settle this blooming issue once and for all. Read my lips please. I use the Eset Suite. Not AVIRA, not NORTON, not F-SECURE, but Eset." }-
Why this very sudden change?

[Coolio10]

-{ Quote: "Why this very sudden change?" }-
You obviously don't know trjam. He changes his av every week, sometimes daily. I believe it was norton yesterday.

[trjam]

there isnt a change, ok. I have licences for frigging everything here, and I do like Avira, but Eset or Nod is really my choice. Now back to this thread. It seems the Norton folks cant enjoy a moment of rejoice because of all the frigging Avira folks pissing in. It was the same for Eset when they got the glory. People use to piss on their parade.

Avira is tops in detection, no one can dispute that. They suck at cleaning but feel that isnt important, their choice. Norton has been at the bowels of a donkey because of their past, and now, they finally have something to cheer about. They detect, clean, and have risen the bar for all the rest. Let their folks enjoy it.

Let their folks enjoy it.

[larryb52]

-{ Quote: "Damn Stefan, I think what most are saying is, detect and clean go hand and hand, seamlessly. Detect, then clean all remnants. This is exactly what has gotten my goat with Avira for a long time. Put all the BS aside. Avira looks through a very narrow telescope, the suite is proof of that. Mele tried, and I ridiculed him, to try and get you folks to make better what you had, but no one heard him. Cleaning doesnt mean you are screwed. Geez, you are such a great gentleman and I respect the hell out of you, so this is hard. Enjoy the view at the top, because it is a hard damn fall on the way down. Eset at least caught themselves half way down.

And screw my avatar. Lets settle this blooming issue once and for all. Read my lips please. I use the Eset Suite. Not AVIRA, not NORTON, not F-SECURE, but Eset." }-

I think it's a good choice...btw you made reference to a post by marcos could you PM me reference the post...thanks...

[trjam]

I have no problem pointing to it. Here (http://www.wilderssecurity.com/showpost.php?p=1317716&postcount=19)

He needs to stick his chest out and show some frustration. People can say what they want, but Eset started this frigging change in AV perception anyway, and before to long, will raise the bar again. It is nice to see him speak from the heart, instead of the support side. :thumb:

[Stefan Kurtzhals]

So detecting 2 variants of OnlineGames as OnlineGames.SABC and OnlineGames.SDEF helps the user how? Strange, people here advice it is more important to put weeks into analysing a single (!) malware while in the meantime, your customers are not protected against 100.000s of other new malware. That it's better to have 100.000 of signatures in your database instead of 10 generic detections that possibly protect you against future variants?
Some people really have a weird logic, indeed... And then complain about bloated AV programs that use too much memory? Hm...

There are gigabytes of new malware samples every single day. Anyone who believes you can analyse and add detection for every single sample without any automation must be nuts! Or must have that time bending machine that kaspersky obviously hide in their labs ;-) Well, or you must be Microsoft and can hire an army for your virus lab. How many people work in the Dr.Web vlab, again?

trjam, we do add cleaning for important malware (that actually came from customer computers) and keep improving the general repair abilities. But I don't get it. It's like a burglar breaking into your house, smashing the front doors lock and messing your rooms, stealing things. So when you fix the lock and put in new windows it's all ok? You don't care about the stolen things??! That's what "repairing" todays malware is - fixing just the obvious things. Users have to understand about the side effects! Is that so hard to understand?

[trjam]

-{ Quote: "So detecting 2 variants of OnlineGames as OnlineGames.SABC and OnlineGames.SDEF helps the user how? Strange, people here advice it is more important to put weeks into analysing a single (!) malware while in the meantime, your customers are not protected against 100.000s of other new malware. That it's better to have 100.000 of signatures in your database instead of 10 generic detections that possibly protect you against future variants?
Some people really have a weird logic, indeed... And then complain about bloated AV programs that use too much memory? Hm...

There are gigabytes of new malware samples every single day. Anyone who believes you can analyse and add detection for every single sample without any automation must be nuts! Or must have that time bending machine that kaspersky obviously hide in their labs ;-) Well, or you must be Microsoft and can hire an army for your virus lab. How many people work in the Dr.Web vlab, again?

trjam, we do add cleaning for important malware (that actually came from customer computers) and keep improving the general repair abilities. But I don't get it. It's like a burglar breaking into your house, smashing the front doors lock and messing your rooms, stealing things. So when you fix the lock and put in new windows it's all ok? You don't care about the stolen things??! That's what "repairing" todays malware is - fixing just the obvious things. Users have to understand about the side effects! Is that so hard to understand?" }-
no problem, but my thought is, when the burglar breaks the door down, you blow him away, on entry, before he steals anything.:dry:

[larryb52]

I try others always end up back at ESET either the suite of AV+loon n stop , I always run SAS with it, it works for me...

[Sjoeii]

-{ Quote: "You obviously don't know trjam. He changes his av every week, sometimes daily. I believe it was norton yesterday." }-
I know him, for some time now. I was just wondering because he was praising Norton that much

[Sjoeii]

-{ Quote: "there isnt a change, ok. I have licences for frigging everything here, and I do like Avira, but Eset or Nod is really my choice. Now back to this thread. It seems the Norton folks cant enjoy a moment of rejoice because of all the frigging Avira folks pissing in. It was the same for Eset when they got the glory. People use to piss on their parade.

Avira is tops in detection, no one can dispute that. They suck at cleaning but feel that isnt important, their choice. Norton has been at the bowels of a donkey because of their past, and now, they finally have something to cheer about. They detect, clean, and have risen the bar for all the rest. Let their folks enjoy it.

Let their folks enjoy it." }-
Don't worry Jeff.
It's ok.

[lodore]

-{ Quote: "So detecting 2 variants of OnlineGames as OnlineGames.SABC and OnlineGames.SDEF helps the user how? Strange, people here advice it is more important to put weeks into analysing a single (!) malware while in the meantime, your customers are not protected against 100.000s of other new malware. That it's better to have 100.000 of signatures in your database instead of 10 generic detections that possibly protect you against future variants?" }-
its quite rare for malware to take weeks to analyse and create removal for.
btw its more like zip#card.scr_ and Trojan-Downloader.Win32.Small.acyi
the first one is a very loose name. the second one is a clear name and can easily find out more information.