AV-TEST certificate Windows 8 Jan/Feb 2013

Agree with you at 100%.

 

100% disagree!

This is an accurate test. If not than the companies will speak against it or never let them test their products again. Your just angry because your favourite product is not the best.

 

Two free products, Avast and AVG score higher than the majority of the paid products.

 

About CIS result;
Did they test CIS with BB module or didnt? Does Anybody know that?

 

Comodo still scored lower than Windows Defender. That is something that can never be defended (pun intended). And now the fanboys are here to defend it, like a knight protecting his precious princess.

Fanboyism at its best.

Each participant knew how their product would be tested. It'll be interesting to see what Comodo can learn from this test and do better in the next one. They have a lot to improve.

 

Melih accept result without any defend on comodo forum.
I dont understand fanaticisim.

But there are more.

Result is not bad if you know how CIS works.
CIS will upload all unknown files to their servers after first scan. Then CAMAS will scan them. If it found suspicious activity, CIS alert for them. This procedur is not long, Probably 5 minutes.

Off course malware will run for 5 minutes but under BB's limitation.

I dont know how they did test CIS. BB/HIPS was enabled/disabled? i asked it 1-2 forum post ago.

It successfully dedect 18.267+105 malware, It cant dedect only 20 sample.

on the other hand;

0 day malware test; included 125 samples. It is too low for comparative to AV's.
i understand this test is very hard but sample set is too low. And my idea; i can not say this AV good or bad after this test.

good one, finally we see comodo on independent test.

 

guest: I'd imagine commodo was tested on default settings.

 

A fault confessed is half redressed!

 

Bloody hell! Has melih been on the happy pills.

 

+1

Even if Melih has accepted the bad and good points..even then some people like to show "CIS Is the perfect Security App."

After looking at some earlier bypasses and issues with their sandbox,I would say CIS has rushed releasing version 6 and this has leaded into all sorts of issues.Now I am really getting tired of repeating things a number of times when some people say "Its almost impossible to infect a system with CIS"

When will people learn that even if CIS has HIPS/BB/sandbox it can still be bypassed in a number of user dependent and sometimes the type of malware that will be in the future will be getting through these type of suites.Not that I have a issue with CIS per say,I actually use CIS on one of my Home PC's and I like the control.I makes me feel "You are the boss " but still There are something's I always disliked in every product even in avast there are many things I never talked about that I personally never liked.

If someone over here can call me a "fanboy" because I somehow showed my personal opinion on differences between 2 products,then they must realize I install and use many products and not just only one product on all my machines at home and at work and just because I showed some offending difference and the fact of the cons of that particular product,then it will be like a slap on some users face when they open their eyes and look at what are the cons going on with that product.If someone has read my replies in the CIS 2013 thread,they will realize that I personally love CIS type apps and just because the fact that my personal opinion/difference offenses someone's thoughts or doesnt match their opinion,I wont change my facts or opinions and then those people who actually call me "fanboy" are the "real fanboys" because they cant tolerate someone's personal opinion or personally seen difference between 2 products.Sorry,but I am very frank in generating my thoughts.I know I am Sarcastic,but sorry.

Comodo isnt that bad at all and there is little of no info of how these test-beds and the test rules/enviroment are created.Neither they have any proof of the things they tested.

I would take these reports as a gospel of money and God.But Yes a test is a test and if CIS faired poorly I have to live with the facts.None of my or anybody else's replies will make a difference for anything...But off course the bugs,FP's,bad support and other problems that were or are existant.But atleast it wont change opinions of some people in that community who have faced issues.

This is just my opinion and I have no Offense or "fanboyism" to or against anything.Others have different opinions and I respect that.

Thanks!

 

Yes you are right.
i always say "there is no perfect security app"
Every year there is different Leader, 1-2 years ago we were talking about Eset heur. Eset was leader. Now today everyhing is different. We are talking about cloud, sandboxing...

Apps are changing, malware are changing. Everything is different everyday

Ok. So they need more powerfull proactive module.
Maybe they need more powerfull sandboxing tech, Defensewall is good example
Evo-gen like tech also working nice. HIPS is not only answer. There are different things, ideas, tech.

 

And per http://www.av-test.org/en/test-procedures/test-modules/protection/ AV_Test uses standard settings, so Avast was not detecting Potentially Unwanted Programs, which assuming there were some, make its result look even better.

 

As well default Heuristics is Normal. There it a High setting. Tho that may evoke FPs which may get blocked, deleted or quarantined depending on the Shields' Action setting - which is why Ask is the preferred setting for all-knowing elite users.

 

I don't think using High heuristics affects detection all that much. And i've been using high setting ever since it's available (since v5) and i haven't got a single FP because of it.

avast! uses heuristics in a bit different way (as far as levels go) so maybe Vlk might explain what each level does (or includes). I frankly haven't noticed any real world difference between Normal and High setting.

 

Some articles mentioning the WIN 8 AV-TEST:
http://securitywatch.pcmag.com/none/310037-microsoft-passes-antivirus-test-but-just-barely
http://www.neowin.net/news/av-test-releases-first-windows-8-anti-virus-comparisons
http://www.virusbtn.com/news/2013/04_05.xml

 

Surprised/disappointed by CIS. FortiClient has been a rapidly rising star. Avast/AVG impressive results. WSA and Bitdefender performed well as expected.

 

Disappointing result for comodo especially in the protection section.

 

I dont agree.

Autosandbox is the component for zeroday. Offcoz AV also protects & things missed by AV is protected by autosandbox.

In version 6 with default settings you get only 1 type of popup & that is Unlimited Access popup for installers & is easy enough to reply. No other popups are there. And in any/other products things missed by protection is automatically allowed the difference being there is no popup.

Avast has definitely improved, Comodo & Avast are my favs.

CIS too has improved a lot. Right from the product when it was not at all usable for average users, today its easy & effective to be used by any/all users. AV too has improved a lot. New good features are there.
Valkyrie, True Behavior Blocker, etc new technologies to come.

And its not that everything is bypassed. Offcoz things will be bypassed as nothing protects 100% & new malware appears. Things missed by any/other products protection is also a bypass so any/all products protection is bypassed.

User dependent & type of malware affects any/all products.
You have mentioned Avast & Comodo in the post so I will give examples of them.
In CIS 6 defaults there is not much user dependent things. As I mentioned earlier 1 type of popup is there & is easy enough to reply & depends on users, like in Avast, autosandbox reply depends on users. Autosandbox detections are there, so does in Comodo. FileRep Popup, would you say its user dependent? I would not but some may.
Type of malware in future, well they will affect any/all AVs/Suites.

This is my opinion & respect yours.

 

I would take these tests with a grain of salt. There is no way that Kasperksy IS has a better performance than Avast.

 

It seems this has become a Comodo site but I want to commend WebRoot...maybe all the naysayers should check their powder! It might be wet!!!

 

Why is it that people dont believe home grown tests like youtube, etc... where atleast they can see whats happening but they believe testing organizations tests where some dont even mention testing methodology, no proof tests were done, etc..., just a chart?

 

Wow KIS and BIS topping the charts again!

 

. =

 

Because Home grown tests are not reliable.What if the reviewer is some "mod" or "fanboy" of some product.If you look at malwaredoctor's avast reivew carefully you will find many funny instances.Files that were quarantines by evo-gen were in program files folder and they were found by malwarebytes and how can that happen in the first place?? He obviously paused the video before scanning with the tools and transfered the files from the chest to the folder and then scanned with the tools to give avast a bad sum up and if you look at these guys who uses COMODO their review always promotes CIS or AVG and they even bash products like ESET which are execellent,mainly I am talking here about rynasandbergfan23 reviews.

And here are the core reasons why:

a)Sample set is way too low to test.
b)Dont reflect real life usage.
c)Samples were never ever checked if there false positives or some sort of broken/corrupt files.I test avast regularly against packs too and most the stuff that goes into memory either doesnt do anything or just sits there and hogs the CPU and does nothing [no infection] to the VM at all.Some samples used in the test were way to old and there is a time gap between a threat being released and the AV adding it to the database and anything,any sample beyond that time gap is obviously dead piece of malware that doesnt spread in real world.And most of these home grown tests,atleast most of them in my opinion never had showed avast's real capabilities and always tried to trash avast/eset and many more well known AV's,atleast these AV test orgranizations reveal the truth otherwise even if they dont have any proof of what they tested,they atleast are a contradict to most of these home grown tests and have a little wider sample set.

This is just my observation and opinion.Others may have different opinion and I respect that.

Thanks.

 

Ok, you are right, I'm just angry because the explanation of the methodology is incomplete, because they have disable 3 security layers of a security product to do the test and because while they are testing only the AV component they have chosen to use CIS instead CAV.
I mean or they are stupid or we are if we believe everything is ok. I'm talking about Comodo but probably the same has been done for other products, so this is not at all a real world antimalware test, this is just a test where the product with better virus definitions "wins" while all the other security layers are not taken into account.
On the other hand the amount of samples used makes the test even more useless.
I know that Comodo AV is quite "mediocre" but don't call this real word anti malware test because is a total lie, and compare this with the AVC real word test is an insult.