AV Comparatives has released the newest report.

For those who use AV's for on-demand scans it must be useful right?

 

It is interesting to note that you and Zombini are well known supporters of Norton, and Norton did quite well in the first and only dynamic test of AVC.

Nothing wrong with being a supporter of a particular company (I do support Avira) but who are you to basically ask AVC "to immediately stop doing such outdated by type on -demand test" ? I mean the AVC group is doing an activity whereby AVs companies pay to be tested. They have diversified their testing methodology to give a versatile picture of all the willing players, and at the end of the year an AV is elected as the best overall performer. What's wrong with that? Again who are you (thank God it is a minority) to go around telling people how to do their job?

 

Although I understand your point and I agree that dynamic is the way to go, on-demand scans even with outdated malware is useful because this way we know where we stand. If nobody "controls" the AV companies...I consider them capable to leave old malware out of their definitions or in general lowering the quality levels.

 

Vipre.... where is Vipre?, maybe another 12 months before we get any idea of the comparative detection capability of Vipre.

Until we see these results, vipre remains a dark horse.

I will wait with keen interest.

 

There is however something new in this test, namely "the test-set is smaller with real-world malware being still around (within last eight months)"

 

it doesnt...

and 2nd, i actually do find these tests useful, heres why. Im using an AV for DETECTION, not prevention, i want my AV to be able to detect as much as possible, for prevention i dont rely on an AV. an AV's original job is to detect and thats what im looking for. HIPS/BB's are great to add in, but at the end of the day, detection is what im looking for out of an antivirus and thats what these tests show. people culd make an AV with horrible detection but amazing prevention cuz they add in a whole bunch of components, but thats not what im looking for, i look to other products for that but i ALWAYS want to have something that can detect these viruses in the end of the day.

 

Yes, but maybe they share a % of signatures. I think is safe to say that if PC Tools finds some interesting new material, this will be send to mama, no?

 

I agree although in an ideal world I want best detection and prevention. Anyone who says that the holy grail is prevention and that detection is unimportant is ignoring the fact that zero day threats will never be 100% detectable. If you are unlucky and get infected then the only hope is for that malware to be detected in a future scan once it's been identified. It's BS to suggest that all malware can be prevented no matter how layered is your protection.

 

well i dont know the inner workings of PC Tools so i cant say, but all i know is that they do use the VirusBuster engine for the AV part.

 

I think that there is an error with Panda statictcs.
It should score 84 % instead of 99!!
(99.4+82.8+40.8+99.7+100+99.8+67.9)/7=84.34

Kudos to Avast ;-) It has highest script malware detection than any other participant ;-)

 

I guess you're right. PcTools malware discoveries are included in Spyware Doctor and those yes maybe go to Symantec too. But the AV must be just VirusBuster signatures.

 

The score is based on total malware detection , so it is right.

Yeah kudos to Avast

 

Each malware section is worth a different weight factor. Meaning higher detection of trojans is going to affect the overall detection rate more than the detection of say script malware. that's why its detection rate is so high. They really need to do some work on the Script Malware and Other Malware sections though it seems.

 

Hi don't forget that we also have have Truprevent when files are executed.

Panda did not do bad in AV Test dynamic test.
http://blogs.pcmag.com/securitywatch/2009/12/av-testorg_releases_real-world.php

 

What do they mean by Script Malware? Would Script malware be PDF Exploits?

 

That's an interesting question!

 

Yes Script section includes mostly PDF Exploits. We don't create many sigs for these on purpuse as our products include a technology (Kernel Rules Engine) which proactively prevents all PDF/DOC/XLS/WMA/PPT/etc type of exploits generically without needing signatures.

More info:
http://research.pandasecurity.com/how-to-prevent-zero-day-exploits/
http://research.pandasecurity.com/how-truprevent-works-ii/

 

Thanks for the info, most interresting

Does the cloud av still interfere with Steam?

 

I have not seen any issues on the forum recently about Steam and PCAV.

 

Thanks alot! ill give it a go then real soon.

 

If people do not have access to internet, even if they use other AVs they will still not be protected as their AVs will not be able to update properly.

When offline, the most likely way to be infected is through USB, fortunately Panda Vaccine caters for this issue.

 

Could someone please explain how these tests are " Totally Useless " ? Totally useless ? I would like to know the reason . As I must be an idiot . I find these tests interesting and taken with a grain of salt . Good starting point for beginners though . But totally useless ? Seriously . Please enlighten me how this is factual because I do not understand the facts apparently .
Thanks

 

1. Automatic checking of samples, no validity that the samples are infact malicious.
2. after this test, companys will get a dvd of missed samples, ive read on here that alot of companys are adding these automatically, producing much more false alarms and inaccuracys, are any of these samples then used in the next test, who knows?
3. static tests like these do not show true detection, as alot of AV's have other methods in place to counteract a missed signature.

there are many many reasons,

you might like to read the post on viruslist.com aswell,

AVC shouldn't even be allowed to publish these results, but hey - thats my view.

 

Totally useless when the AV of their choice doesn't do up to their expectations, but if it does, then its the ultimate authority.