AV-Comparatives Malware Removal Test

http://www.av-comparatives.org/weblog/?p=173

 

Amazing how Gdata scores so highly in detection and so poorly in removal.

Congratulations to eScan, Symantec, Microsoft, F-Secure, Kaspersky & BitDefender for getting 3 stars.

Note: "Microsoft OneCare would have scored Advanced". Shows that MSE is a good improvement over OneCare for getting Advanced+

 

AVG was there on the test at all?

 

geez, time to change again.

 

nice job KIS!

 

These are the official winners it seems if you base it on the only products to score good/good.

I'm going to assume you can't view the PDF since it makes it very clear it IS on the test. So yes, but it only scored Advanced (2 star).

 

Nothing Above Average.
That's just damned depressing.
Hugger

 

An interesting report; thanks guest for posting the link.

I must admit I'm surprised by the inability of any of the contestants to unequivocally remove all traces of the malware samples.
More proof that detection and removal truly are two separate issues.

In my opinion, this lends even more credence to the belief that wiping, formatting, and reinstalling is the only truly safe recovery from a severe malware infection.

 

Many engines but no removal concept

 

Incorrect, It's the only true clean method, but a harmless dat file or registry entry sitting somewhere is of absolutely no harm to the user.

 

this is a pretty interesting test.

 

Two questions.
1. Would MBAM do better at cleaning than the products tested? I think I read something about Microsoft using it themselves for some problems they found.
2. I think restoring a clean image would take care of the infestation? But now it seems even more important to prevent infections.
So what is the best way to prevent infection while maintaining full useability and not have a big impact on performance?
Hugger

 

You will get a million answers to the 2nd part of your 2nd question. Cleaning is nice, but prevention is the key IMO. And of course a clean image. Look at my signature, my pc performs great with no conflicts and I always have clean images on hand if needed. And BTW I don't get infections with my setup. Not saying it has never happened or never will happen, but if it does I have a clean image. This malware removal test is interesting, but prevention and a backup scheme is way more important IMO.

 

Correction acknowledged elapsed.

I am particularly surprised by the performance of escan.
It doesn't get much notice in these (and other) forums and it's detection rate, while comparatively decent, hasn't been eyeopening.

Quickly scanning the results from this test and those in May and August, it seems that, on balance, Symantec, Bitdefender, and F-Secure would rate the overall highest for a combination of detection with a low number of FPs and removal capability.
Kaspersky also did pretty well.

For me, I'm really disappointed by the results in this test for Avast and Avira, my two personal favorites.

 

I think it was Symantec ...

 

It was, and it was also support you had to pay Symantec for I believe.

 

A good argument for HTTP scanning as this will lessen chance of initial infection.

 

Sorry for the off-topic, but care to explain how? A file being detected on the system whilst being downloaded and suspended seems to me to be the exact same as a file being suspended in transit.

 

OK. Thanks.
But my question is would MBAM do better at cleaning than the tested software?
Hugger

 

People would probably say yes because of their experience, but the truth is no one knows. They should take the test.

 

As others have said interesting results.

My only question is how could any of the products receive Advanced+ when none of them scored above good (i.e., just because Advanced+ exists doesn't mean any of the products have to be awarded Advanced+).

Shouldn't the awards be handed out this way:
Poor = Tested
Average = Standard
Good = Advanced
Very Good = Advanced+

If the above was used, none of the tested products would have received Advanced+ in either category (and you could argue none of them deserve Advanced+).

 

HH...AHA...

No one show the table of the Removal test result?

Let show it....

~ Removed Screenshot as per AV-Comparatives Request - See Removal-Tests page for the actual PDF~

 

I noticed that too. It's confusing imo.
Bitdefender seemed to do the best at removal, but it looks to me like most programs left traces to varying degrees. Nothing major, but a bit surprising.

 

You came to that conclusion how? It didn't even score good/good.

 

My mistake. It wasn't the best at removal. It was average.