any new av tests floating around ..

just curious to see what they are looking like now.. i dont base it on these except for maybe a few better tests but i like to read them to see whats going on.. i have not seen any of late.. anyone know of any good ones out now... recent ones i mean?? thanks

 

AV-Test.org's results are the latest I know of.

 

thanks ill give it a read.. just being curious

 

hmm interesting results there.. they say that avira had a much lower false pos rate than almost all of them including kaspersky.. normally that is not the case.. is avira getting that much better with fp's ... also they agreed to another test i saw recently where avg scored very very well much better than it has in the past... very nice for avg..

im just suprised kaspersky only got satisfactory for fp's where usually they do very well there.. hmmm... nice quick red though..

 

Also, here's a thread about it.

 

thank you ill read the thread..

 

The FPs table tells the whole story. Anyone can create a AV product and churn out defs every hour but have high FPs. It is much more difficult to have high detection and ZERO FPs at the same time. I see only one company on there that got a ++ for detection and a ++ for FPs.

 

Yes and I reinstalled NIS 2008. It runs light and is effective. There are many Norton bashers here as you have said, that is because they prefer (apparently) boutique AVs. A company that can produce ++ for detection and ++ for FPs- is clearly doing something right regardless of the sentiment on this site.

 

Norton is a very good AV.

 

An interesting AV comparison (or at least not the usual ones) is at the following URL http://www.programmifree.com/confronto-antivirus2008.htm

If you don't understand Italian open it with Google translator, the automatic translation is not bed

 

well i just happen to know italian.. lol.. ill check it out thanks

 

a few others are anti-malware.ru and antivirus.ru

 

Uhm, if there has been a discussion about the goodness of AV-Comparatives in this forum, then this one should neither be here.

First: Anywhere is well explained HOW samples are choosed - they simply expose that they tested AVs against 46800 infected files but not how have they checked if files are really malware.

Second: Anywhere is written WHICH AVs settings have been used by testers. Who really know if settings used are the "same" for every antivirus software? (obviously I'm not talking about "same settings" in a strict way because every antivirus has its own configuration. I just don't know if settings used are comparable each one).

Third: They talk about viruses, trojan, worm and other kind of trash malware but they don't eplain what do they mean with this generic definition.

Fourth: As far as I know, at least from who I asked about it, no AV company gave their agreement to be in this test.

That's all