AV-Test corporate product test

[King Grub]

Here:

http://www.av-test.org/down/papers/2...n_endpoint.pdf

In German, but the results are visualized and easily understandable even if you don't know German.

[Fly]

One thing is for sure, I wouldn't want to use McAfee !

The chart on page 8 should garner most of our attention. Some pretty stellar showings all around.

As King Grub mentioned, it's pretty straightforward but FYI the Webseiten-Attacken's three rows are fully (Voll, full) blocked, partially (teilweise) blocked and not blocked (infiziert, infected).

AVG got 100% in that category. I wonder if consumers enjoy that protection via LinkScanner??

A 100% sweep by everyone pretty much puts the nail in the lid of the Wildlist as a subject of testing. IMHO.

Zoo Malware. Love it. Can't wait for my next user to get infected... "Well, Bob, it looks like you took your computer to the zoo again."

[kwg]

My (probably flawed) translation of the concluding paragraphs in the article:

ESET Smart Security 4.2.64.12

In the test, ESET performed well. Of the 13 attacks through Web pages, the software prevented opening of the site in twelve cases; and in one case, the virus was detected after opening the site and was eliminated. Thus, the user experiencing this attack was entirely spared. Of the 201,940 different malware samples, the software recognized only 94 percent, the second-worst result in our test. ESET Smart Security did particularly well in recognizing 99.69 percent of worms and 98.92 percent of viruses. However, it looked worse in the category of potentially unwanted programs, with only a 91.58-percent recognition rate, the worst result in the test. Such files may be deliberately not identified in order to avoid legal problems. The performance values are generally convincing; only the copying of a selection of files over the network was slowed by more than half compared to an unprotected PC.

AVG Internet Security Business 10.0.1153

The AVG solution achieved a very good result in the test. The 13 infected sites were all blocked before they could cause any harm to the computer. 96.65 percent of all tested pests were detected and destroyed. Compared to the competition, this is a totally convincing result. The performance impact of the software is within a reasonable range. Only the copying of local files was slowed by half, and the calculation of MD5 hashes for a selection of files was 77-percent slower than without the protection. Overall, AVG is well-balanced and successful anti-virus software.

Avira AntiVir Professional 10.0.0.937

The test results confirm that the product rates well overall. The performance is outstanding; no other software slows the computer any less. Unfortunately, the software could block only ten of the 13 infected sites; in three of 13 cases, the PC became infected with malware, behaving as if no protection software had been installed. The detection rate of 98.60 percent from the 200,000 sample pests is a solid performance. The detection rate of backdoor programs reached 99.55 percent, the maximum value of the study.

G Data AntiVirus Enterprise 10

Whereas the administration of G Data AntiVirus Enterprise seemed an ideal solution, the results of the scans in our test were not really convincing. Only in the detection of pests did the anti-virus program shine. It was also gratifying that, despite the double-engine, the scan times were limited. Hopefully, with the planned release of a new version in Spring 2011, its weaknesses will be eliminated.

Kaspersky Anti-Virus 6.0.4.1424(a)

Kaspersky Anti-Virus revealed itself in the test to be a robust solution. However, the Kaspersky-protected PC exhibited poor performance. Whereas the download of 20 ZIP-archive files usually takes an estimated 3.35 seconds, the same process took 10.17 seconds with Kaspersky. While the detection of malware at just 96.09 percent is an acceptable value, the Russian software company messes up on the Web page test. Three out of 13 infected Web sites infected the computer in the test without the AV solution being aware of it.

McAfee Total Protection 4.5.1270

McAfee brought up the rear among the six anti-virus suites. The management interface is indeed done well and is completely based on Web technology. However, the more-complex installation and mainly ordinary detection rates bring Total Protection a last place in the comparison test.

[yongsua]

I am not really happy with ESET result.

[xandros]

thanx
but where is norton internet security and avast ?

[Nevis]

Originally Posted by xandros

thanx
but where is norton internet security and avast ?

same doubt here ..

anyways , McAfee scoring last ... disappointing

[King Grub]

Originally Posted by xandros

thanx
but where is norton internet security and avast ?

The key words are "corporate product".

[Nevis]

Originally Posted by King Grub

The key words are "corporate product".

i think symantec do have that

[King Grub]

Yes, but not Norton Internet Security, the one mentioned.

[King Grub]

Here are AV-Test:s tests for the upcoming Symantec Endpoint Protection 12 (commissioned by Symantec):

http://bit.ly/g8GSfM

http://bit.ly/fNQERR