AV-Comparatives May 2006 Retrospective Test Table Now Available

Any way to test lets say Panda TruPrevent and KAV6 proactive Defense?
I mean they are thee but no one really knows how effective they are since you have to execute stuff in order to see the results.

 

already done. the results of panda will probably remain internal, those of kis will maybe released in near future (i make no promises, depends from the vendors).

 

Good to see someone passionate about testing and listening to requests.

Great job, IBK!

 

Good to know. Thank you Don.

 

Cool IBK. Can't wait to see how effective PDM really is.

 

OT: it is sad that I have to repeat again that the tables should not be made available on other sites .
Richard Schouw, as soon as you read this, please remove the table (currently defaced by me ) from your post in your forum.

 

Trustport AV uses Norman (AEC-GAV-N) or Bitdefender (AEC-GAV-B) engine.
I want to know which engine have been used in the test.

 

Isn't there also a Norman+BitDefender edition?

 

TrustPort AV was set to use both engines.
http://www.av-comparatives.org/pics/aec2.png

Note: this screenshot was done by AEC, not by me.

 

The core of TrustPort Antivirus is Norman and/or BitDefender antivirus scanning engine. It must be clearly defined in the tests. Because, some products of AEC (Trustport) use only one engine (Norman or BitDefender, as AEC-PRW-N, AEC-PRW-B) or both of them (Norman and BitDefender, as AEC-PRW-NB)

 

We are trying to understand it. Hope we shall find the answer. We believe the answer is in the methodology of tests. Once it's clear we let every one know. Anyway, these results are questionable - so it is really important to understand what's beneath.

 

well, you accepted the test methodology and if you read the report (which is in the hands of DrWeb since weeks), you know that Dr.Web did not get the advanced+ due its high number of false positives. If you do not understand something in the report, ask me instead if saying results are questionable because DrWeb e.g. did not get advanced+.

 

Well, I am sorry to say that we are still trying to understand the reason for the false positives. I see people here writing about their making the decision and basing themselves on the results of those tests. This is why I would like to stress that it is not a good idea to choose an AV looking at adavanced/advanced+ in the so called "proactivity" - several years ago it used to be called "heuristics" - as far as this methodology is concerned.

 

a) all false positives were sent to DrWeb (and confirmed).
b) peoples are interested to know how products score in such retrospective tests, if some products are better or worser than others there is nothing i can do.
c) about choosing av's i think it is explained several times on the website etc.; like you do, I also stress peoples that there are many factors to consider when choosing an av

 

I think you are putting too much emphasis on these tests as the reason for why a user chooses a particular AV. Bit Defender scored A+. I own BD 9 Professional edition but I don't use it because their support demanded that I remove Spyware Blaster and Spybot from my computer as being incompatible with BD. I removed BD instead. I now own a copy of KAV 2006. It only got A in the current retrospective test but it doesn't object to my also using Spyware Blaster and Spybot which happen to be my two oldest spyware scanners of which I have high respect and will not give them up. There are many reasons why I settle on a specific AV and IBK's tests are just ONE PART of what I consider when deciding on an AV. I believe most advanced users would agree with me that a wise decision regarding an AV involves many things.

 

Absolutly agree with you.

 

I definately agree with you. I use KAV6 on one comp and DRWEB on another with no reservations because they have served me well and work flawlessly on them. These excellent tests by IBK, while informative are not the reason I chose the AV's I use. But I still appreciate the service and information he provides to us with the testing.

 

I've never thought that i would agree with lots of womans (except a few wellknown ones) on antivirus matters. However, here i do - good point Mele

 

BUT most AV-Vendors consider the results on Testing sites to be very important, particularly when they can be used in their PR blurb on their web-site/other advertising.

Being near the top on Virus Bulletin for ITW tests and Advanced/Advanced + on av-comparatives for zoo malware/heuristics would make very good reading.

 

*cough*

 

IBK, i reccomend honey and lemon to solve your cough

(Thanks)

 

The mean of smile is...... new detailed retrospective/proactive test results are ready now in the site.

 

it looks like the results and report are now avalible.

First thing i notice is how much AntiVir has improved with its new HE Engine. Although it score a rather high on FP test.

Norton and Mcafee ( the two most corporate uses ) has the fewest FP in the test

 

VBA32 has high detection rate and high false positive at the same time.
has the detection rate include false positive ?

 

Nice work from some companies!
The distance between NOD32 and the competition are lower now, but they have to lead with the excessive number of false-positives and the very slow system scan...

I think that some should have a lower award because of the number of false-positives...

The really like to see the test of December to view the progress!

Thanks a lot IBK to provide use this useful test...