AV-Test.org Review and Certification Report - 2010/Q3

AV-Test
The biggest AV testing organisation in the world is going to post its product reviews and certification report - 2010/Q3

Very soon - until the end of this week

13 products PASS
6 products FAIL

 

Please , don't make predictions , just keep an eye on the AV-Test's web page for results . Otherwise forum team might close this thread. Thank you for your cooperation!

 

thx for info. will check the site in few days for report to be out

 

Then start the thread when the test it's release not before...

*^P?="· Is going to win xD

 

Kinda true
Anyways, keep up the news!

 

No , the thread at the moment is not about the test and report - it about the fact that "The biggest AV testing organisation in the world is going to post its product reviews and certification report" - "very soon"

This is a news posted on AV-Test's twitter channel last week . So , people might want to keep and eye on their site . However , discussion is not necessary followed by this.

 

Results are available.

 

Thx! Gr8 to see that Symantec & F-Secure continius to score top results

 

I wonder which are the three products that have failed but not published.... one I guess is bullguard but the rest? We will probably never know...

 

Wow G Data is the lightest of them all. I need to check them.

 

Avast protection rate seems unconsistable with av-comparatives results.

What do you think ?

 

One result says mse is on par with norton and here it is failing miserably

 

MSE relies on signatures and a heuristics engine. Of course it's not going to be on par with Norton. It may show that it is some days depending on how often they decide to update their signatures and with what signatures they update with.

 

Symantec, F-Secure and GDATA are to be congratulated, excellent results.

 

McAfee , Microsoft , Norman - NO certifications

Maximum best result (100% = 18 point)

Worst results : Bit Defender (12 points total) , Webroot (12 points) , Trend Micro (13 points) , Avast (13 points) , ESET (13 points)

Medium results : AVG and Avira (both with 12 points /but 5.0 out of 6.0 points for protection)

Very good results : Panda (13 points) , Kaspersky (14) , GData (15)
F-Secure and PC-Tools (both with 15.5 points)

AND .... Norton/Symantec has achieved 16 points - the very best result in this test

 

The results are strange. My experience is the exact opposite, it does abslutely outstanding with web based threats and exploits.

 

Mmmm, so Avast scoring 13 points achieves one of the worst results and Panda scores a very good result, with the same score...
(nothing personal 3GUSER, the test results just make my eyebrows raise).

Avast loses mainly because of the (partial) test score achieved with a 20-sample set test.
Those 20 samples better represent current 0-day threats (representative in vectors and regions) for 100%.
Otherwise a 20- sample set score can be discarded as statistically irrelevant (and therefore bogus).

 

G-Data!

 

As usual, some of the best testing and reporting in the industry.

Regardless of the wrap-ups and weighting of overall results, for me and I would think most of the Wilders community who run known-clean systems and want to keep them that way, only two metrics really matter:
•The most recent Real-World Testing.
•Dynamic Detection Testing.

I've got a screen shot here of a quick and dirty spreadsheet which compiles those numbers for your one-shot-view of those results.

The winners and losers of the "right-now" termination at the perimeter of current threats is readily apparent. Everything else is statistical or subject to the needs and preferences of the user.

 

Congratz to Norton, it's been showing very good performance in almost all tests.
F-Secure and PC-Tools did also very well. Kaspersky's low repair score is a bit surprising (especially when compared to Q2 results), it provided the best protection though.

 

The protection of Avast seems to be poor (only 2.5) and Panda has a lot of FP as usual ... Well done AVG!

 

Can someone tell me if the Avast sandbox can sandbox an internet browser? I have used it for media players and such but had not really tried it to sandbox a browser. Also, I'm assuming if Avast did sandbox a browser the results would be different than what the study showed, ie: zero day malware from the internet. Is that correct?

If Avast can sandbox an internet browser are there any studies of that against malware?

thanks

 

Hi:

acr1965; I did test the avast sandbox a while ago on firefox only. Made it open in avast sandbox and worked great, but the only downside to it is that no matter what you download from the browser will be stuck in the sandbox and no way I could find to make it go outside sandbox. So it deletes everything once sandbox empties incl. the saved files downloaded. SO unless you never download anything from your browser and just use it for browsing then the avast sandbox is safe and great. It was not for me. I download often. Hope this answered your question.

 

The main purpose-in-mind for avast! virtualization feature (sandbox) was for browsers. Can't say I've tried deliberately infecting my machine by pasting URLs into the browser address window but any active malware that gets past other defenses should live "happily never after"... after a reboot that is.

I have the same problem with Firefox... so I use Chrome or IE8 to download/save stuff successfully while virtualized. It would be nice though if Firefox and sandbox could cooperate.

 

Latest versions of avast! Sandbox have option to exclude certain browser elements, allowing you to adjust settings and to download files...

Something that doesn't seem to go well together with my experience. Web based threats and exploits are covered with superior detection. We had several attacks on our local hardware forum and each time it got blocked by avast!, deblocked again after admins fixed it and again blocked when someone managed to get junk into the forum (again). And when it was fixed again, it was again deblocked very fast. Firefox's malware/exploit blocking was always lagging behind in both, blocking and deblocking situations. In most of occasions, URL:Mal was detected and few times it was the script. Same goes across other webpages. For me real world conditions mean the most and in this case AV-Test's methodology doesn't exactly reflect the real world results.