Avira is Winner -Again-

http://www.av-test.org/index.php?sub=Papers&menue=1&lang=0
System Disinfection: Getting rid of malware from infected PCs (226 KB)
Maik Morgenstern, Andreas Marx
Virus Bulletin 06/2008, page 11pp. (4 pages)

 

It seems to me that Kaspersky and Symantec 'won' instead.

 

I don't understand the scoring when it says this in the body (pages 13/14)

 

It is an old test/comment (from June)

 

And? Slightly dated does not detract from the efficacy of Avira.

 

I'm confused - With this test Avira is tied for third with OneCare, McAfee, and Panda. Norton and Kaspersky had the best end results per the PDF...

 

Indeed, when you read the text, and not only the chart, you see alot of

But Avira did splendid in any case.

 

Avira did great, no doubt -- But the title of the thread is way misleading.

 

Its quite obvious that avira lost this test to norton and kasperski.

However the test mentiones nothing about what settings where used in the scanners. Also its not really fair to compare the limited free version avira to the other payed scanners. Avira has a paid version which scans for a lot more attack vectors.

This test simply proves that Avira free failed to detect 1 of the test-cases and failed to remove 2 of them. I bet that if the test was redone with Avira premium suite and settings at MAX avira would have done better (as has already been proven in other tests)

If you look at all the other tests it looks more likely kasperski and norton got lucky this time

 

Well, this is just a small-scale test (5 samples!), and I believe its main purpose is to educate rather than provide comparative information.

 

i think you're right.

This is meant to scare the public and the AV creators into finding better solutions for this problem

 

If you take any notice of all the anti-virus(in fact anti-anything)tests that are released
1)you'd be changing your security software faster than most people change their socks
2)you need your head read for taking notice and doing what's in"1)"

 

I think all virus tests are good... small or big they all serve a purpose (if done with enough documentation), that is to point out flaws or holes in a security program. And the vendor should take notice of the test and try to improve in the area that the test(s) shows the program is lacking in.

 

These tests are stupid. If professional virus hunters like Avira an symantec with all those employees can't get it, so can't test people.

 

No , the fact is kaspersky and symantec are very good cleaners ( and DrWeb not tested here). Just another example :
http://www.anti-malware-test.com/?q=taxonomy/term/14

 

Interesting results.

Avira scores high overal on the site, but indeed kaspeski is almost always in the top3. Too bad nobody is testing Comodo Anti Virus, i am very interested in seeing how it compares to the rest

(still the tests on that site are unfiar, they tested the weakest version of avira against payware virusscanners)

Its the Premium edition of Avira that has the good results, not the free edition (it misses several layers of protection)

 

I doubt that the paid version of Avira could get better results.
The mail and web scanners won't help to desinfect a system. The other difference is the adware/spyware detection but the free version detected all the inactive samples so there was no ad/spyware.

 

Premium or free.......Avira uses same scan engine.

 

Not correct- the same engine is used.

 

Or should I use these test to help me make my determination as to what wins. Oh, my head is spinning, tests, tests and more tests, and from what I read, none are accurate.

 

You obviously have made a decision as to the AV you use. Others can do the same with or without the tests. That said, the tests likely mean less than real-world experience demonstrates, but I am also skeptical of those that say the tests are not that accurate. They do mean something, as there is a relatively high correlation between unrelated tests. For example, Kaspersky does not have a high proactive rating at Shawdowserver or AV-Comparatives- does this mean something? I think it does.

 

How can it be explained that Dr.Web does very well at shadowserver but is "garbage" in some other tests?

 

As always, if Norton wins then the test gotta suck right. Go Norton trolls!

 

What do you think?

 

It hasn't won any tests that I value- i.e., AV-Comparatives, and it is not being tested at Shawdowserver. However, its ok protection.