[AV-Comparatives] Adware/Spyware/Rogue (PUA) detection test

http://www.av-comparatives.org/weblog/?p=183

http://www.av-comparatives.org/comparativesreviews/pua-tests

 

G-Data and F-Secure

 

Thanks for posting this.
Interesting results, some familiar names in the Adanced + category.
MSE was tested and that's a good addition.

 

It is probably good for users that, in all fairness, no product fared very badly IMO

This is good news in general for adware/spyware protection offered by these products in general (although the sample set size may have something to do with it, let us see what future tests show).

 

The really funny bit is that here in Norway, norman gets alot of praice!! Our biggest bank offers it for free to all theire customers and PC world norwegian edition gives it high remarks.

It is really funny considering that they have performed B A D!! over the last couple of years in almost every test you can see around the internet.

 

They are cheap~! There is your Bank incentive. And frankly PC World can be bought with a few Hotdogs. Just ask Norton!

 

I can't say about trustport. It is way on top of the stack
Anyways nice results.

 

Hmm..

TrustPort actually uses 3 Av engines to scan with.
From these vendors, AVG, Dr.Web, and Norman's engines.

Might it be therefore it got so highly ranked?

Edit: Actually, I didn't know that TP used 3 engines until I checked their website!

SweX

 

TrustPort uses right now BitDefender as one of their main engines.

 

oops Eset just Advanced??

 

Well, they don't use Bitdefender as one of their engines according to their website anyway!

Where did you find the info that they use Bitdefender as one of the 3 engines

EDIT: Right I just found this page on the website: http://www.trustport.com/en/notices/attention-customers-upgrade-to-version-2010 <.

Where they says TP currently uses AVG and BitDefender so you where right.

However, If you buy the business version then you will have options to add Dr.Web and VirusBlokada as well.

So Norman however isn't in the 2010 version anyway, they got VirusBlokada and Bitdefender instead.

 

True. But the sample size was of 750297 samples. Which is no way meager and IMO anything less than 95% on such a large set is mediocre.

In a darn age where tests with 40 samples are hailed. I am sure this test holds more water. Still waiting for AVC Dynamic Tests, lets see what surprised they hold

 

Check this out:
http://www.trustport.com/en/news/trustport-rolls-out-new-versions-of-its-antivirus-solutions

PS: Read The fourth paragraph.

Also: http://www.bitdefender.com/NW1214-e...-of-TrustPort’s-New--Antivirus-Solutions.html

 

Trustport 2010 uses AVG+Bitdefender.

 

Not to get too far off topic but does anyone know what firewall the Trustport suite uses?

 

Thanks for the link. Looks like they didn't test FPs, else they wouldn't have given TrustPort ADVANCED+

 

Im not suprised by that. From realtime experience Eset are among the worst when talking about Adware & Spyware (and thats just my experience ). I like it as AV but always reccomends ppl to use it with an realtime AS too because Ive seen so many spyware infections it couldent handle

Im a bit dissapointed about Kaspersky, but other than that I think the results are as expected. A shame that AVG dont get more out of Ewidos engine - they are falling more and more behind IMO.

 

All the products that use BD engine(TP,GData,F-Secure) have performed better than BD itself.

 

@icr
Not weird since they use additional engines.

 

Interesting to see avast! 5 already included even though it's not even in final stage yet. Score is so-so, but they startd adding dedicated PUP's not long ago, so that's not really surprising. But it's good enough.

 

It Will just get better after the final release

 

When will we see Panda to be included in those test?

 

Has anyone ever noticed from past beta's not just Avast, When a product is tested in beta the final product does not do much better. I'm talking about like a 0.2% increase at most.

 

The behavior shield should add to detections when it is implemented.

 

That only helps if they are executed right ? As I believe this test was just against definitions not actually executing the program, so the score should stay the same even with that part enabled. Tho I could be wrong.