AV-Test Results for Sep/Oct Now Available

I know what you mean but I bet there will still be people with issues not matter what system they are using.

 

Yep.

Those who dismiss the results of tests because they are not ‘real world’ are being absurd.

There are many different types of tests. The tests are modeled after real world malware attack and infection scenarios.

The tests reflect reality.

It is that simple.

The Superantispyware guys are famous for doing horribly in tests and then talking about how the product does well ‘in the real world.’ Nope, just a poor excuse for poor performance.

Testing is the basis for the evaluation of products. If you deny that, then it all comes down to opinion vs. opinion -- which is useless.

There are many tests. Tests are good. Tests overall reinforce each other on reflecting the performance of certain products, whether good or bad.

Whether you like it or not, products that do poorly in testing also do poorly in the real world.

That’s just the way it is.


The end.


.

 

im happy with WSA

 

They are. My "real world" experience with the losing products is consistent with the test. Everyone can use whatever they want and they don't have to justify it to me, so stop trying to.

 

Most of the people around here aren't real users and never will be. Get yourself a house full of kids and one computer for everyone and have it jumping from Nickelodeon to online banking a dozen times a hour and you know what someone is talking about when they say "real world" and you probably won't be using what most rate on top. I only know of one testing site that is "real world" accurate. But there are alot for geeks who already have a controlled enviroment and need a testing site the least of anybody. If you know enough to call someone else's opinion absurd what do you need a testing site for ?

 

In this scenario, the ease of use of the product matters a lot more than you'd think. A product that may not be the best in detection but still has alerts clear enough for everyone to understand and use without problems will probably fare better than one that was selected just because of a high score in tests. For that reason I can understand why you'd not be using a product that scores well - the product must also cater to widely different levels of awareness, patience and surfing habits among it's users in such a scenario.

 

True but...

...many of us are the first people that get called to help the folks you mentioned so it is not like a good bunch of us are never exposed to such things. I personally have not been infected in 6 years. Through my job and my friends, family and neighbors I see it much more often.

 

This is also just measuring pre-infected systems for WSA, not repair once WSA has been installed already and is journaling changes, so our "in real life" scores would be much higher.

 

I tested Bitdefender Antivirus 2013 and found that Bitdefender was unable to block harmful download from www. spycar.org , Internet Explorer Smart Screen blocked it. This is a special website for testing antiviruses. Eset Nod32 and Trend Micro Titanium totally blocked this website.

 

Maybe they concentrate on blocking actual harmful files, not test files.

 

I respect AV-Test Results.
AV-Comparatives, AV-Test, Virus Bulletin They are all good and reliable.
Every test cannot be same and that's why there are many different types of test but Good product usually get good result.

Some AV vendors just trying to ignore test result (when they get bad result) because it's old methodology.
This is not good for consumers. Old methodology? Old methodology is still working. Test is a Test.
Real world test? Real world test is a also just test.

Malware attack and infection scenarios cannot be same. Different user knowledge, web surfing habit,
different PC settings and environment. Unfortunately there are too many malwares are discovered every day.
It's very simple. Detect malware, Block malware and Repair malware.

If you are interested in infection scenarios I recommend Dennis Technology Labs AV Test (http://www.dennistechnologylabs.com)
but you should know old(?) methodology is still working and important.

 

Congrats on the performance impact score. That is the best I have ever seen.

 

No need to feel pity for MSE users. I know a bunch of people that are using MSE (along SBIE), none gets infected.

Bo

 

Good combination

 

They all work on their own.

However, perhaps Microsoft wants it this way for their products - protection devided. And when AV-Test starts downloading malware from somewhere using not browsers but other software (Sunshine), this is not real world situation. MSE/FEP cannot react - they do not have zero-day or web site black list protection built-in. They rely on SmartScreenFilter and on IE for that matter.

However, other antivirus vendors who do not rely on this technology, work - they have www scanner, they have web site blockers. MSE installer is just 10 MB big - protection modules are other part of Windows. MSE is different by concept, too - it was created to be combined with other MS tools to guard the MS OS. MSE was never meant to be used alone - unlike other vendors' software.

Real users use browsers, not third party downloaders to directly download sites or to visit sites/servers.
http://www.av-test.org/en/test-procedures/test-modules/protection/

N.B. I am not here to guard MS - just saying the test methodology is not correct , IMO. Microsoft products are different by design and by concept and they must be tested differently

 

I cannot agree more on that!

 

let me explain my sentences
I think malware creaters know the additional layers and they design their malwares to bypass these shields.
although win 7/8 are more powerfull than old XP,but new viruses will be stronger and will be designed to get through

So,better core antivirus(as one of the layers) means better protection

 

Even though I don't use it, Avast Free seems an excellent choice based on these results as well as MRG zero day testing. No need to spend a lot of money to get excellent protection.

 

https://blog.avast.com/2012/11/23/avast-free-antivirus-shines-among-a-dull-field-in-latest-av-test/

 

Avira is weak, MSE is very weak ...

 

Hmm, what happened to Panda? I thought repair had improved quite a bit, especially given AV-C's test.

 

Re: AV-Test Results

I would say anybody that passes has respectable results.

 

Re: Microsoft Security Essentials loses AV-TEST certification

• Article

 

Yes, there is still a laaarge room for improvement for MSE.

 

i personally have never liked mse from day one