AV-Test GmbH March

[osip]

AV-Test GmbH March

[trjam]

Wow! Trend Micro. Good work Avira and Eset.

[gerardwil]

Again you have to know how to read such results and what the scores are worth in your positon.

PS Nice place for Clam AV

Gerard

[ErikAlbert]

LOL @ Microsoft. M$ bought B C A C D F C A

[rookieman]

I tried the one with the 99.8 detection rate!I think this graph sums it up rather well

[Solaris]

I don’t know what to think of all these tests will contradict each other (without mentioning the detection rate).

For AV-Comparatives, F-Prot is a real rocket for the scan speed, much more than Avira but a nightmare for false positives. Here, F-Prot is not bad for false positives, not bad for speed scan but below Avira. That is already two opposites, and yet I do not speak about the detection rate.

It's very simple: I don’t want to read anymore: tests about antivirus are too suggestive, too contradictory on the reports against each other.

With these tests, the more we know, less is known, in fact.

[Inspector Clouseau]

Originally Posted by Solaris

With these tests, the more we know, less is known, in fact.

With that comment you've just won a price. (No joke)
PM me to get it.

[solcroft]

Keep in mind that both F-PROT and Avira's heuristics/generic signatures have been greatly tweaked since November last year. F-PROT's improvement is particularly noticeable.

[GES/POR]

Is there a link with more details?

[Leo2005]

Originally Posted by GES/POR

Is there a link with more details?

well the results where already discussed here:
http://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?t=202900

[egghead]

Originally Posted by GES/POR

Is there a link with more details?

or here

http://www.virusbtn.com/news/2008/03...008/03_13a.xml

[noway]

I knew if I kept McAfee long enough that it would eventually be better than Kaspersky!

(just kidding!!!!)

[Sm3K3R]

Originally Posted by gerardwil

Again you have to know how to read such results and what the scores are worth in your positon.

PS Nice place for Clam AV

Gerard

Indeed F all over.

[RejZoR]

Even though results for avast! are good it appears older version was used...

[proactivelover]

result's are like a joke
A B C E F
REMIND ME THE DAYS OF SCHOOL A GRAD B GRAD C GRAD

[Kosak]

And why didn't you read this?

[pykko]

so, the same test Leo said? Any link otherwise ?

[Solaris]

Originally Posted by Inspector Clouseau

With that comment you've just won a price. (No joke)
PM me to get it.

Thank you very much Inspector Clouseau; it's really nice!!

[Inspector Clouseau]

enjoy.

Now back to topic.

[Macstorm]

Well done G Data
but poor detection on actively running rootkits though..

[InfinityAz]

Because there's so much to decipher at once, I assigned point values for each category (A = 5, F = 1) and did a straight average. The best score possible is 5 and the worst is 1. I didn't weigh the values because what each person thinks is important will vary.

Here are the results, by overall score (i.e., higher is better) and alphabetically:

Product - Average
AntiVir (Avira) - 4.50
Norton (Symantec) - 4.50
Nod32 (Eset) - 4.38
Sophos - 4.38
Trend Micro - 4.25
McAfee - 4.13
F-Secure - 4.00
Panda - 4.00
Ikarus - 3.88
Avast! (Alwil) - 3.75
AVG - 3.75
BitDefender - 3.75
Kaspersky - 3.63
ZoneAlarm - 3.50
Dr Web - 3.38
Rising - 3.38
AVK (G Data) - 3.25
F-Prot (Frisk) - 3.25
Microsoft - 3.25
Norman - 3.13
TrustPort - 3.13
VBA32 - 3.13
eScan - 2.88
eTrust/VET (CA) - 2.75
QuickHeal (CAT) - 2.63
VirusBuster - 2.63
ClamAV - 1.75

[lucas1985]

Originally Posted by Sm3K3R

Indeed F all over.

See response times to new outbreaks

Originally Posted by Solaris

With these tests, the more we know, less is known, in fact.

Sometimes I have the same feeling. But I guess we can asses a "good enough" picture of an AV cross-checking different tests and observing the evolution in time.

[Macstorm]

Originally Posted by InfinityAz

I didn't weigh the values because what each person thinks is important will vary.

..and because of this, your ranking's value is zero IMHO.

[Bunkhouse Buck]

Originally Posted by InfinityAz

Because there's so much to decipher at once, I assigned point values for each category (A = 5, F = 1) and did a straight average. The best score possible is 5 and the worst is 1. I didn't weigh the values because what each person thinks is important will vary.

Here are the results, by overall score (i.e., higher is better) and alphabetically:

Product - Average
AntiVir (Avira) - 4.50
Norton (Symantec) - 4.50
Nod32 (Eset) - 4.38
Sophos - 4.38
Trend Micro - 4.25
McAfee - 4.13
F-Secure - 4.00
Panda - 4.00
Ikarus - 3.88
Avast! (Alwil) - 3.75
AVG - 3.75
BitDefender - 3.75
Kaspersky - 3.63
ZoneAlarm - 3.50
Dr Web - 3.38
Rising - 3.38
AVK (G Data) - 3.25
F-Prot (Frisk) - 3.25
Microsoft - 3.25
Norman - 3.13
TrustPort - 3.13
VBA32 - 3.13
eScan - 2.88
eTrust/VET (CA) - 2.75
QuickHeal (CAT) - 2.63
VirusBuster - 2.63
ClamAV - 1.75

Thank you and confirms the empirical testing we have done.

[lucas1985]

Originally Posted by Macstorm

..and because of this, your ranking's value is zero IMHO.

You can do your own weighting to get the picture you're interested in:
- Detection rates: Both (malware and ad/spyware) detection rates.
- Scanning engine: Detection rates + scanning speed + FPs + proactive detection rates.
- "Proactive attitude": Proactive detection rates + response times to outbreaks.
- Flat file scanning: Detection rates + scanning speed + FPs + proactive detection rates response times to outbreaks.
- Detection and removal: Detection rates + rootkit detection + cleaning.
And more.