AV Comparatives: Security Survey 2014 released

AV Comparatives: Security Survey 2014

To improve our service we regularly ask our website visitors on their opinion about various topics related to Anti-Virus Software Testing and Anti-Virus Software in general. The results are very helpful for us and we want thank all who join the surveys and spend their time to complete them.

http://www.av-comparatives.org/security-usage-surveys/

 

Thanks!

 

I knew G-Data would chicken out. But I hope AVC include it in real world tests anyway just to expose and humiliate them further.

Actually I would respect it if they had more guts. At least Symantec and Dr.Web have/had some half-decent reasons for pulling out on principle other than, I dare say, butthurt. Six feet under is where those insular, provincial, self-aggrandizing, cheating, corrupt, deceiving, deluded, stupid, incompetent charlatans belong. They embody EVERYTHING that's wrong with security industry.

 

Great job AV-C

One can read in the report that this year Baidu and Lavasoft are two new vendors that will be included.

And that G-Data will not participate this year as their product did not score highly in last years RWPT. But says they will re-join when they have improved their product.

 

Yes thank you AV Comparatives for your very informative services!
This survey had some unexpected results considering that users who participated are presumably interested in security (even though the sample number is only 5845 around the world):
*There are more Win 8 users than XP
*Linux has only 0.8% of users.
*Chrome is more popular than Firefox
*I'm not surprised reading of Avira's results in terms of AV of choice. I suppose they are paying the price for their past controversial choices about ads and dubious partnerships.

 

Glad to see Avast! is the most popular in all but Asia. Also really excited Baidu and Lavasoft are going to be tested, as I voted for both to be tested.

 

Is this an unexpected result?

IMHO, it's common sense that users who are presumably interested in security to abandon the sinking OS.......

--------------------
Average users it's another story:
http://www.computerworld.com/s/arti...XP_as_Windows_8_uptake_flattens?taxonomyId=89

 

Tell us how you really feel.

 

What you see in that glorified rogueware, I'll never know. And just like rogueware, its GUI is too pretty for it to be legit, which is the only "good" thing about it.

 

Please shut up about GDATA already, you said yourself you never even used them. Your opinion does not matter, you have no subjective nor objective reasons behind your hatred. Go away please, you urk me... your very urksome.

 

LOL

 

Just so you know, I don't always need to use a particular company's product to criticize them. I have respect for the ones that contribute to their field by actually treading new ground with ideas even if their execution is awful, but it lacks even that. For example, they think 'Uroburos' is a super-sophisticated malware, but at the time of the reply below it, it turned out that 6 AVs at VT had already detected the sample as well as Norton with its Insight engine, not including GD. I know that judging AVs based on VT isn't that accurate, but if even their dumbed down VT versions can detect it, most probably so can the "real thing". And while GD not finding it at VT isn't necessarily something to hold against them, you can infer that they failed to detect it at the time of uploading their red paper where others succeeded from the lack of the malware signature or the assurance that GD detects it with its "advanced technologies". Even if that the first Uroburos infection dates back to 2011 is true and it's actually sophisticated, that means they just wanted to pat themselves on the back for at least being (in their own mind) the first to "discover" and even name the malware without considering the possibility that others might have beaten them to it.

PS. I also have a question for you: If G-Data aren't bribing/cheating or at least being favoured over far better products on AVT tests, care to explain why it scores much higher there than on AVC tests?

 

Thanks for the update.
I dont really think G-Data did bad in the tests, they just scored lower because it relied heavily on user decisions.

 

In Oct, Nov and Dec, the miss rate got quite high as well.

 

True, but to be honest after seeing the vitriolic criticism to Win8 on this forum, and considering the large number of die-hard XP aficionados, I was expecting XP to have a larger percentage than Win8. Obviously people happy with Win8 don't feel the urge to post as much as detractors...

 

I love G-Data.

When I installed G-Data, my computer was faster and safer than ever.

When I uninstalled it, my dog died and my computer exploded.

I think G-Data is possibly the best AV product of all time.


I'm just say'in...



Thank you

 

But in a Webroot thread, you pointed out vendors pull out of tests because their product isn't good enough.

 

Just saying, a single threat type can have thousands of completely unique sample types. You may have tested one sample that GDATA did not have where they detect 99% of the other ones, you don't know. If you really want to understand GDATA run a Virtual Machine and run a scan on a malware pack, then take the files not detected via signatures and run them with behavior blocking enabled. GDATA has come very far with their behavior blocker, its one of the better ones I have seen so far. I have never seen it throw up a false positive on my machines, and it really does come into effect with missed sample a good lot of times. You really need to do your own testing before you criticize a company for no reason.

 

Thanks for posting a link to those results. I was wondering what the results of the survey finally were.

 

Some vendors believe in the user dependent model. I happen to as well. AV comparatives only gives half credit for that. I think that wrong. So I am sympathetic to the G-data position.