AV-Test.org: October 2016 Test Results

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Corp_v_Commission

 

They both run great or the most part. I have a license for Norton Security as well, and it is very light, if you disable the browser plugins. I know web browsers are the most likely point of an infection, but it seems most products at this moment seem to slow browsing considerably.

 

Yes how come poor performance ? its one of the lightests AV around if you do a custom install also on AVC test, perhaps installed with all options ?!
But Detection/protection have good result.

 

I find Avasts web scanner shaves about 200meg off my download speeds. If I run just the file shield, it is super light.

 

200 megs off of what total?

 

I have a "1gb" connection, that gets around 800-900meg (without Avast) on download. So over a 20% drop in download speeds with web shield.

 

I have a 100 Mbps connection, no loss with or without webshield

 

Ok. I am not sure if the 20% scales, or if it is only evident with highspeed connections.

 

Surprised that Quick Heal did so well. It's generally at the back of the pack!

 

I swear, every time testing results come out from AV-Test and AV-C, I find myself AV shopping, even though A: Nothing can touch Webroot's performance and B: Haven't have an infection yet. I have issues.

 

You have the issues most of the people here have. I carry licenses for Norton, ESET and Kaspersky every year. I bounce between each of them until i have an issue (it's never an infection) and then switch to one of the other ones.

 

Haven't spent a dime on AV since 2011. Only on MBAM Premium.

Avira Free
COMODO Internet Security
EMET
MBAM
UAC at max + standard account
Sandbox

 

Why both? I could understand using their firewall along with Avira.

 

Avira for primary AV scanning, real-time, etc. Their engine is probably still the best ever.

Then COMODO for:

• Firewall (custom ruleset + very high popups + all the filtering enabled)
  
• HIPS (safe mode)
• Secondary sandbox

 

I think that's why he was asking. Couldn't you get all that from just Comodos Firewall, rather than needing the whole suite?

 

I sure could. However, I like to keep COMODO's AV enabled. I know it's not the best AV, but it saved my skin a lot of times (when other major engines haven't detected the threat) and it doesn't impact the performance in games or in rendering, so I keep it enabled

 

Kaspersky is consistently great in these tests, year after year. Most impressive.

 

Avira the best? Tell that to FinSPy trojan:
http://blog.emsisoft.com/2015/07/27...which-protection-their-trojans-cant-get-past/

And they say Avira, Bitedender and Kaspersky are the best? Yeah, right.
However, BitDefender and Kaspersky have been shown as constantly slightly superior even to Avira, at least, in all malware tests, so far.

 

What about Comodo's bugs do you have them while you are playing games?

 

That is for the hacking team trojan.

That is for the FinSpy trojan. So we are talking about 2 trojans (TWO) that weren't detected by most AVs as they are government sponsored surveillance malware, and the far reaching conclusion is that Emisoft, Comodo, Outpost, and Trustport are the only companies that can be trusted...

Absolutely ridiculous, particularly considering that the above mentioned champions have always scored consistently less than Avira, Bitdefender and Kaspersky both at AV Comparatives and AV TEST. Any AV can miss a zero day for all sorts of reasons, therefore professional tests are more reliable as they they have a large number of new malware. It has become almost an axiom in the industry - no AV can guarantee 100% detection -.

 

Ah yes, because when I think of top of the line AVs, I IMMEDIATELY think of Outpost. You know, the firewall/Antivirus that was recently discontinued and will no longer have database updates in 4 weeks. Yep.

 

Never had a problem, and I have ~600 GB of games on Steam and Origin.

 

Your method for determining "the best engine" is flawed, you cannot say that just because of one missed threat. It is one of the best AV engines because it misses the least amount of threats, and that trojan is likely in the ~0,1% that Avira misses (to be fair, lately most engines miss only 0.1% and that includes Emsisoft). And I'm sure there are a lot of threats Emsisoft misses as well, that doesn't mean it's a bad engine
I used Avira Free only because of it's scanner, and because until several months ago (when I lastly used Windows) it was the engine that missed the least amount of threats as per av-comparatives.org Detection Test.

And to be honest, I'm not concerned about threats on Windows: I only install legitimate software from verified websites, I control them with HIPS, EMET is helping to protect my Kernel (everything on "Enabled" or "Opt-Out"), I used a regular account with UAC at Max meaning I had to type the Admin password everytime a change was to be made, and if I'm not sure about the software I first upload it to virustotal, then to "analize.it" which tells everything the executable does (very low level, really cool), and then run it on a sandbox for a few days to see how it behaves.

Avira was there "just in case", like if I'm playing a game and then the server changes to a custom map, and the server admin uploaded a malicious file that will be downloaded by everyone who joins that map. Today this isn't a concern given the fact that I use only Linux and the fact that I do not allow my games to download files (except for those older servers which I know for sure don't contain malicious downloads).

 

Colleagues, please don't yell at me, please I was just posting the link, to me this is a matter of trust, if I cannot trust companies, than I don't care how good they are at detecting anything, if they use my own data for someone to gain power and control.