PC World: 13 security solutions tested by AV-Test

lol, they need a mouse and patience for 3 clicks

 

Looks like Top 10 Reviews table

 

Yes xD

http://anti-virus-software-review.toptenreviews.com/v2/ the ranking is also a nonsense.

Panda #17
Webroot AntiVirus #3

 

25 samples is not near enough to provide a relevant rating of the top 10. Statistics state that the larger the sample size the more relevant the results will be in a real world situation. 25 samples out of the millions available is only 1/40000000 if there were only 1 million viruses in the world. Thats pathetic.

Second they say Comodo stopped all of the samples, was the only one to do so, and then didnt end up in the top 10. During this claim they said the core security wasnt there. Either it is or it isnt. I doubt it isnt since it was the only one to block all 25 samples. Where in the world does being the only one to do something put you out of rank?

And lastly. They complained that Bitdefenders GUI was overly complicated and made it to their bottom line review. Nortons GUI was cluttered with junk they state you dont need to pay attention to and then state it has a nicely designed interface in the bottom line review. Very very very inconsistent.

 

For two reasons:
1. The industry mentality is still very much weighed towards on-demand scanning of a large set of malware to measure the effectiveness of an AV. This is changing slowly over time
2. Because 25 samples isn't enough to make any judgement anyway as you state. You can't have it both ways - if it's not a statistically significant sample size (which it isn't) then you can't include the results as a key factor in the final rankings.

 

They why even bring it up on their part if its insignificant anyways? This should be labeled more appropriately as a GUI and performance test.

 

They probably should have labeled the realtime tests "For curiosity only".

 

What Norton products have needed an email address to install?

 

Don't try and make sense of this mish-mash or you'll just end up old and grey like me.

 

I agree too, but is it any worse than Norton which finished in first place?

 

Norton AV/IS pops up a registration nag screen which can't be closed when you install the trial.

 

It can be closed (using Task Manager). Once you register for Norton Account , you can never again need to reenter all information . If you use a paid version with a license , re-entering any information for Norton Account is not needed and not done.

 

But still, is this more user friendly than entering a username and password once upon download and once upon installation for ESET? I think not, PCWorld clearly is inconsequent.

But thanks for clarifying that with a paid license you don't have to make a Norton Account. Makes me considering Norton again, since I absolutely hate creating an account.

 

Personally, I think even rating the installation of a product is totally stupid. I mean if people cannot understand some basic prompts from a product, then they don’t even need to be using a computer. Having said that, I think 99 percent of users would have no issues installing any of the products tested.

Now for detection. I am not going to argue to much about their results. I agree a small test bed is not adequate but Norton has been shining in most tests since 2011 came out. And deservingly so.

And, yes Eset is lacking a tad in detection and cleaning. I think most would agree that improvement is needed and I feel sure that Eset knows this. Having said that, my AV license for them wasn’t up till April 2011, but I went head and purchased the suite for 4 computers. Why? Because of what I feel is to come this next year in their next version and I have no worries about it.

As far as PC World, I read and believe in, what the real world tells me. Period.

 

Im sorry but i hate filling in forms just to download a trial
http://personalfirewall.comodo.com/comodo-security-pro.html
and this is (imo) over the top.Comodo probably isnt the only one that does this ,but i dont think pcworld are lying or exaggerating ,the form filling in this case.Personally i dont want to put card details etc in for just a trial.
ellison

 

I've never seen anything like that before. Handing over your credit card details just to do a 30 day trial?? And then if you don't cancel it you get billed automatically Really? Have I misread the form or are these the terms?

 

I never said you don't have to make a Norton Account for the paid . You create for any version - just once and never again . With paid product it remembers your license on the computer and no matter how many times you reinstall the product you don't need to remake this account nor re-enter product key.

Making Norton Account requires you to enter a name, email address , password and country. All this information , including email and password doesn't have to be a real existing one . Norton Account is to have a username (the email) and password to access your product key(s) online via mynortonaccount.com

Norton products use product activation technology but a single product key and u need to provide the vendor with some information.

 

They might also ask you for your social security number

 

I agree with you the review is too critic for no reason (re. the interface) but for the account - you actually need to make one. If you got ESET box or OEM serial number you must enter name , telephone no. , email , adress in registering the serial number (similar to the Norton Account but with more options here) . If you purchase a electronic license for ESET product you must provide the distributor or the reseller with information such as billing details , name , address... Then they give you UN/PW to use instead of a serial number/product key , etc... Any vendor in the world requires such an information for a licence.

 

I did so in my VM but the window just launched again when I enabled Norton.

This test looks worthless to me, although they have some valid points of some products.

 

thank you

 

Hmmmm...

I think you should use whatever anti-virus solution that works best on your rig regardless what any computer magazine has to say about it.

I read the article and, if I take everything on it literally speaking I would've dumped ESET NOD32 v4.2.67.10 right away.
The thing is, however that ESET hasn't never let me down when it comes to online-threats and USB-threats.

Although, it's true that sometimes NOD32 misses some Trojan Horses that I have thrown at it from web-sites known to distribute malware, it's also true that when I submit the .exe sample to Virus Total [VT], I see many big names that still have not signatures/heuristics in place to catch the threat.

What I do afterward is to submit the sample to ESET so it can be added to the virus database as soon as possible.

Even when some AV companies claim to catch 99.999% of all threats in the wild it's also certain that the 0.001% that go uncaught can make the difference and be the ones that trash your rig badly.

Lastly, I have yet to see when AV Test.org has performed some AV tests where they have put ESET on top of the list. Either paid by PCMag of PC World, all AV Test.org test trash NOD32. Something weird considering that its rival AV-Comparatives.org always reveals results where ESET is one of the top tier AVs out there.


Regards,


Carlos

 

I think the AV-Test Malware set is not as prevalent as in the AV-C or VB.
Perhaps that is why the results change much.

 

This is the first I've heard that Avira's security suite had a negative impact on system performance.

 

as for detection rates, take a look at shadow server monthly stats. even if it aint a comparative it sure gives some indication on larger scale:

http://www.shadowserver.org/wiki/pmwiki.php/Stats/VirusMonthlyStats