AV-Comparatives real-world protection test August 2014

Imagine what happen if Avira use the cloud of Panda, wow!

 

There is a new spyware/pua/pup engine with 2015. No guarantee it will catch them all, as many are considered greyware these days. Eset is extremely good in my opinion for Adware protection, but even that doesn't snag a lot of them. 2015 should prove much better for Trend due to more generic adware detections. Although I cannot confidently say you won't ever get a PUA with it - obviously. I tend to recommend something like AppGuard for systems regularly plagued by PUA/PUP installations, as those are really click-happy user issues. Often machines I remediation take 4-5 different scans from different products to remove all of the adware. That's the nature of PUA/PUP, there really isn't a bulletproof solution for them yet outside of AppGuard (and other lockdown, whitelisting type programs). Even MBAM won't catch them all.

 

This thread seems to be hijacked and turns into an TM marketing thread !?!
Why no own thread to introduce TM 2015 and all of it's features...?

Edit: Oh I see this thread exists already, thats why I'm wondering even more about all the marketing in this test thread.

 

No it has a a firewall booster to enhance the protection provided by Windows firewall and to protect your computer against botnets. But you do have data and privacy security.

 

Well,i guess its the same thing that comes from here:
http://www.av-test.org/en/statistics/malware/

Not so fake huh!! totally conclusive or not its not an excuse for flaws.

Anyone still wants to argue?? Its coming from a "Test Lab" itself.All this 99.1% is pointless from my view with the huge influx of malware coming everyday.Even like 20,000 malware samples are used in the test for 1 month I would still call it a drop in bucket.Look at AV test chart for last 12 months.

 

Thanks smage for the info The program appears very attractive.

I currently have 11 months to go on a NIS 2014 subscription. I had been using KIS 2014, but after an update I was no longer able to access the net with my favorite game no matter what I did with KIS in terms of white lists/exceptions,trusted/untrusted modes, etc, but nothing worked. All other IS Suites I had access to interfered in some way with something on my PC except NIS 2014, although my confidence in NIS is not high. Then NIS issued a new patch for FF32. My PC suffered a major crash, so I am afraid to use NIS. And Norton appears to be screwing it's customers with a change in it's policy of no free upgrades to the latest edition, though no final decision has been announced. To me this would to me be at least a breach of trust. They are introducing One Single Program, Norton Security, in place of all it's current non-enterprise security products and as of now it does not appear that they will be upgrading NIS to the new program.

I then started using Bitdefender IS which I got their free 9-month promo license for, but switched to the a demo of the new Emisoft IS 9, which includes BD engine. So far I am impressed with it, but Trend Micro also looks very good.

 

Guess I'll think about trying another antivirus program that has less detection and less false positives.

 

I’m not disputing your sources, but from my experience I ran into malware several times in 3 years and that is only by plugging in infected third party flash drives; I’ve only had one instance of real malware detection online in 8 years. One could argue that no detection doesn’t mean no infection, as malware might have slipped through undetected, but multiple scanners have never come up with anything with all my machines…

Now when somebody says 450,000 new malicious programs are registered every day one would expect your AV to detect something at least every other day… By the way, I think Avast is still a great AV notwithstanding the results, 96.1% is good considering 669 test cases, I’d be worried to use Ahnlab V3…

 

I know plus we cant take AV-C as the word of go as we have seen somce hard to detect stuff from USB sticks over sometime now.I think avast needs to improve.We will see with v2015.

 

Lavasoft was awfully disappointing considering it has BD sigs. Is this before or after they integrated AVC into the program? If they hadn't yet, I look forward to seeing the next test results when they have AVC.

 

It'll still not match BitDefender but will come pretty close (take eScan as reference, it does use Active Virus Control).

 

I can't find which version was tested. Since version 11.3 added AVC, I'm guessing it wasn't the one tested since it wasn't released until late August, so it will probably be used in the September of October Real-World test. I look forward to the results.

 

Adaware free 11.3 does not have AVC, only paid versions have it, so if that was the version tested there would be no difference in the results.

 

Avast is disappointing, they should really work on their AV instead of grimefighter and other ueseless junk.

 

That is exactly what they are doing since a few months now,read my reply:
https://www.wilderssecurity.com/threads/avast-2015-beta-2-build-2015-10-0-2200.368367/page-2

Be positive complaining doesnt help.I have tried that trick with avast and it makes it worse.

 

Complaining doesn't help? Wow, I hope they know that Avast is not the only AV in the world.

 

The first time I tried Panda Cloud Free around three years ago it gave me six false positives on the very first time I ran a full scan. I later switched to MSE then recently avast!. I've put Panda back on my laptop however as with only 1GB of RAM avast!'s need to scan everything that moves slowed browsing sometimes. I didn't install the Panda toolbar so its the lightest thing I can run. I'll keep an eye on the potential false positive issue however.

 

They are aware of it, they are working on this for nearly 1 year if not more.

 

I see, thank you RejZoR.

 

I wonder of my ASUS Router RT-AC87R w/Trend would be an ultimate combo with Kaspersky? Kaspersky seems to lack for HTTP/HTTPS detections, and Malware Blocking, that's where Trend accels.. Neil said Trend blocked 80%+ at the port, while Kaspersky only blocked 10% of URL's, and none of the malware.

Interesting idea - leverage the strength of each product.. Right now I use Trend(Hardware)+ESET, but I disable ESET HTTP/HTTPS scanning because I find it buggy, and it slows streaming by a good measure.

 

Faronics Anti-Virus was also tested.

http://www.av-comparatives.org/single-product-reviews-tests/

 

It's Ad-Aware Free -dittos to garrett.

Hover your cursor over any bar in the chart - product data appear at the top of the page.

In Free, there're sigs (as you noted) scanning and the B-Have virtual environment heuristics in the BD core engine. These scans are presented during the file download to a system temp folder before being passed, upon passing, on to the browser download folder.

Web filtering, which could use some (OK, alot) improvement, is provided by the installer opt-in Toolbar.

Lavasoft, all products, does provide BD sig and engine/library updates in sync with BD.

AVC was added just recently to Ad-Aware Personal, Pro and Total but one would never know when while browsing their Web site or to what by reading (the last time I checked) the changelog.

As well, Ad-Aware Free and Personal can't provide the HIPS-like network processes monitoring of the BD firewall driver and libraries in Pro and Total.

I can't fathom why Lavasoft submitted their free product to compete against full-blown $ecurity $suites. Much to their detriment considering that in the security forum poser/lurker community, Lavasoft is Lavasoft, Avira is Avira, Avast is Avast, period ad nauseum, no matter how many differing products are offered by a particular developer.

Lastly, all Ad-Aware products are a dual engine solutions having Lavasoft components originally designed by the legendary Nicolas Stark. Though it looks like they don't really shine even with their continued development.

Cheers.

 

Eagerly awaiting the next AVC performance. I have Avira, Webroot and would purchase Trend Micro if it was lighter than Avira

(note: not an A vs B comment or intended to evoke such a response)