AV-Comparatives False Alarm Test March 2014

Thank you.

Right You Are (if you think so) [Così è (se vi pare)]........

 

You're just posting the same "facts" from AV-C. I was talking about ACTUAL and REAL end users. In all the time i'm using avast! i think i've reported liek 3 false positives and i'm using it for 10 years now. A lot of stuff has come and gone through my system and i'm not talking just stuff from safe webpages, but a lot of questionable stuff. Granted, there was no Evo-Gen back then, but still, a clear proof synthetic tests are one thing and real world another. With your statistics, i'd need to have at least 10 false positives every year on average. And i had none.

 

@ RejZoR,
Your statement is clear: "The AV-C test says 94 FPs, but according to my own experience (or the FP cases in Avast Forum) the FPs are fewer."
Ok. Noted.

What I'm trying say is:
You or the Avast forum users are a very small portion of the total avast users worldwide.
Therefore, instead of judging an AV according to one/ten users experience, I prefer the test organizations and their testing procedures.

 

Lets hope Avast! improves for the next test.

 

Once again a thread deteriorates into another 'member size' fiasco. At the end of the day Avast work great for RejZor, I used it for 4 years without issue and no FP's. I've moved across to 360 IS to see how it fairs. It's all about what works for you and how and what data you handle. Anyone can quote chapter and verse of test results but in all fairness, that's all they are, tests! Experts will always state that 'their' product is better than 'others', like cars and fuel economy. Lab tests state one thing but no two are the same , it's how they are driven , where and the circumstances surrounding them. PC's and AV's are exactly the same.
'Members' stowed and brains switched to on guys!!

 

Speaking of false positives...was using Panda Free until yesterday when it thought Piriform's Defraggler was a virus and continued to delete it. False positives are a pain for sure.

 

New detection technologies are usually unpolished and erratic. I tend to put users' real experience before lab tests, but the 94 FPs are understandable in this case.

*prepares to have this post forcibly deleted in 3...2...1*

 

This debate about false positives found in some products is kinda moot. By the time you read the report, the FPs were already fixed by the vendor. As far as I'm aware, AV-C reports the FPs found before the test is published.

So, it is true to say you may not have had a FP alert on any of the listed products as the heuristics have either since been fixed from the alert experienced by AV-C, or it didn't trigger until the anomaly crept in. You have to be at the right place at the right time to experience these things.

 

Yes, I was thinking the same thing, it would have made sense.

 

I did too try 360IS but the QVM engine is far too trigger happy. It flagged like 30 files. And Bitdefender also made few FP's.