AV Comparatives - August 2007 report

Re: AV Comparatives is Almost Due

Says who? You?

Symantec always had decent good detection rates. If you don't like the GUI or the way it installs/deinstalls is completely a different matter.

 

Re: AV Comparatives is Almost Due

Cool your tool and live with it but don't put it down. If there was not competition there would be no incentive.

 

Symantec is Number 1!

It can be argued that Symantec is the number one AV in the AV-Comparatives test. It may be 4th ranked in detection, but the first two, Trustport and Avira, have a problem with false positives, and according to the author FP's can be as serious as an infection. AVK has a very slow scanning speed. Although I have never used it, I bet with both the KAV and Avast engines it must slow down systems a bunch. By itself Avast gave my Vista notebook a real performance hit. That leaves Symantec as the top ranked AV without a major defect.

Yes, the one that everyone loves to hate. If it isn't programed in a basement in the Balkans it must not be good enough.

 

Re: AV Comparatives is Almost Due

there is no spyware/adware etc. in the used test-set, so it scores equal in this test.

 

Re: AV Comparatives is Almost Due

How do you know that *for sure*? Just because several other products calling something Trojan.XYZ doesn't mean that the file isn't spyware. Some Vendors simply add spyware with trojan names.

 

Re: AV Comparatives is Almost Due

i was refering to avira. i tried avira with and without the ad/spyware detection and there was practically no file detected as such by avira, as they are not included as we try to do not include files that could be classified as such - the last decision about the classification is our.

 

Re: AV Comparatives is Almost Due

Symantec/Norton detects about 50% of infected files that I receive by mail every day. I know that I can't use it to set an AV as good or bad, but Norton detects about 0% of trojan banker from Brazil. I can't imagine this AV in a top-ten ranking... It's totally poor... I believe no AV is better than Norton because with no AV you know that you are susceptible, but with a poor AV you believe that you are secure while you are not.
Here in Brazil Symantec and Mcafee have more than 50% of market share and it's a very big problem because people are not protected using these AVs. We have a big trojan banker factory here and only Kaspersky, BitDefender and Avira are prepared to fight against it (+90% detection). Other Avs detect 70% or less with or without heuristic. It's the reality here and It's dangerous... I'm not talking only about trojan banker, but other malwares that we receive here follow the same way...
Sorry, but I really don't believe that Norton/Symantec can be so good in other countries while here it's so poor.

 

Re: AV Comparatives is Almost Due

Go to NOD32 Antivirus Forum thread 'Congratulations Eset' and read post#12

 

Re: AV Comparatives is Almost Due

I agree. I had Symantec NIS 2004, and disliked everything about it, but never got infected (8 months tenure). Then it was Kaspersky's turn, and their support was as bad as Symantec (except for Don Pelotas, whom I wish he were moderating Nod's forum), but then again no infections whatsoever(3 months with them).

I have been with Nod almost 2 years: No infections, I went to Dante's hell with it, and came back completely clean. The only difference with Nod is that it just doesn't give you other problems, and two years is a good testing period to assess unpredictable situations. This is my experience anyway, and an AV is not just detection percentages.

 

Re: AV Comparatives is Almost Due

btw, compared to february:

Microsoft.......+7,97% /
Symantec........+1,97% /
Avast...........+1,87% /
McAfee..........+1,52% new engine
BitDefender.....+1,40% /
AVG.............+1,38% /
ESET............+0,89% /
Dr.Web..........+0,60% new engine
AVIRA...........+0,60% /
Kaspersky.......+0,57% new heuristic
TrustPort.......+0,28% /
AVK.............-0,14% /
F-Secure........-0,34% /
eScan...........-0,36% /
F-Prot..........-1,07% /
Norman..........-2,70% /
Fortinet.......(-4,01%) heuristic disabled

P.S.: I found an interesting test from anti-malware.ru (posted on http://www.hwupgrade.it/forum/showthread.php?t=1541875) about the self-protection of suites. dunno if it was already posted at wilders.

 

Re: AV Comparatives is Almost Due

Actually the new 4.44 version detected OVER 3 % better those new nasties added after the former test than the 4.33 version. In this kind of comparison DrWeb 4.44 scored better than M$ OneCare, McAfee, F-Prot, Norman and FortiClient.

Best regards,
Firefighter!

 

Re: AV Comparatives is Almost Due

Do you open all the e-mail you get everyday? I'd say 80% of my mail is SPAM and after a cursory glance at the addresses I just delete without any second thought (let alone opening unknown attachments).

Like you say even Avira and your +90% detection won't protect you from a lot of malware in the long run. My suggestion would be to open your mail in a sandbox of sorts and safely check it before keeping it.

 

Re: AV Comparatives is Almost Due

Not sure at all about this, because BitDefender passed NOD against those samples added after the former test.

Best regards,
Firefighter!

 

Re: AV Comparatives is Almost Due

@Inspector Clouseau, I know it's "off topic" but your new Avatar is really nice.Your new girlfriend.

 

Re: AV Comparatives is Almost Due

@tiagozt - Symantec is rather slow in adding new detections. So when you get something in your mail that is really new it is likely that it is not found the first day, whereas Kapsersky maybe detects it within 2-4 hours. For av-comparatives test this delay doesn't really matter.

Generally people should treat email very carefully, with or without AV, so I don't see speed of response to new threats as that big an issue.

 

Re: AV Comparatives is Almost Due

Hey Guy's and Gals:

My thread is about AV Comparatives NOT AV-test! Just a friendly reminder not to muddy the water.

The way to use these tests IMHO, is set your own criteria for an AV/ASW eg giving weight or not to things like FP's being important to you or not etc then run those by through the test results of AV comparatives select the TOP 3 for YOU (not someone else's criteria).

Predicting how an untested version or product would have done is a mugs game (no disrespect intended). If it wasn't tested, (well how to put this) it wasn't tested and I wouldn't draw conclusions with no data! No one should. If you want to keep your untested product/version fine but there is no reason to predict results that are not there! Maybe next time.

Decisions to keep or change should for me anyway be based on test results over many test periods.

Get one of those top 3 on 15 to 30 day trial (unless you have one already then go on with life!)

I face a keep BD or not opportunity as my subscription fades in a week. So I will post my own criteria and conclusions next week after analysis is completed. I don't care how it come out since what ever it is I will have a good top ranked AV!

Take care!

 

Re: AV Comparatives is Almost Due

According to the line graph in the full report Symantec was one of the fastest ones to add missed samples from the last test.

 

Re: AV Comparatives is Almost Due

i really dont understand why people question norton,

the norton-bashers only bashed it when it was system heavy, and now it isnt that and hasnt been since 2007, people are just running out of things to moan about.

 

Re: AV Comparatives is Almost Due

here is what drweb had to say, i wont say who or post any screenshots as thats a bit unfair.

to me, this seems stupid to test the first beta, why not the one available at the time of testing?

anyway,

they mention constant contact, and that they are still awaiting the dvd which must be lost in the post

we'll see how things turn out shall we.

 

Re: AV Comparatives is Almost Due

Quite so. I've used both over the years and only the pro version will detect adware, etc.

 

Re: AV Comparatives is Almost Due

I downloaded the 4.44 version the 5th august from their beta site and updated it.

 

Re: AV Comparatives is Almost Due

But those missed samples are different from 0-day threats. Imagine there is a new kind of storm virus or something, Kaspersky would react in an instance and Kav or Kis update itself, NAV or NIS just get updated one time per day usually in the evening (Europe) - so most probably you have to wait until the end of next day until you're protected against this new threat.

 

Re: AV Comparatives is Almost Due

Maybe the reason is because Symantec is depending upon SONAR to deal with zero-day threats

SONAR and the Storm Worm

 

Re: AV Comparatives is Almost Due

ok i shall tell them again, they seem to think differently.

 

Re: AV Comparatives is Almost Due

Thanks IBK and congratulations to you and your team

Symantec's proactive detection rates and speed at adding missed samples (0-day) aren't that impressive