AV-Test release latest results(08.9.2)

Well, he's right -- From a concept perspective, they're definitely not the first. However, they have the resources to take it to its current (and leading, from my understanding) speed.

 

I agree tests are important but IMHO they should only be used as a general guideline.

 

It shows that AVs are not 'losing the war' against malware as some 'pundits' have suggested.

 

I thought Dr.Web had withdrawn from VB testing.

 

Yes they have.
This is from a different group, AV-Test

The results of testing done by AV-Test, have been published by many publications including VB magazine. But this is no way related to the VB100 testing that VB does.

 

I dont believe the result see below
Link removed. Not recommended. - Ron
I shows quite different result also BD is not that bad

 

That website's reviews are completely fake. Don't bother seeing them.

 

I agree with emporerdarius, I have always understood that TopTenREVIEWS is a marketing site where vendors pay for the review results. As far as I know that site was always a fake.

 

Ahh, okidokie.

Thanks.

 

Absolutely. Just look what products they are pushing.

 

Sad part is I have had customers that have been suckered in by that damn site. we should place PlaceboAV up there at #1

Do a forum server if you have not seen that AV

 

clam has the compatibility problem with mpmain file of the micropoint proactive defense software,and i can't find the support information of clam.
can they resolve this problem?if they do,i will pay few money to them.cause this is a great av project!

Good thing!i will test it to experience this!

 

yes.BD is surely not that bad.maybe it's some corps' different choice!

 

What happened to BitDefender?

BitDefender 2008 -> Malware detection 97.7%
BitDefender 2009-> Malware detection 97.6%

 

Who cares about such a marginal difference? Perhaps the 2009 product has other major improvements than test detection rate, which is excellent at 97%

 

I think hes either being sarcastic or trying to make a point, if not, he should leave this forum and go find more serious people .

 

Their Lab developments are so lazy that they don't care and it's true.
And in an antivirus the detection rate is the most important, and BD seem to leave it behind and improve other things, not so smart by them maybe.

 

I can see where you would really be sweating over .1%. How do mamage to sleep at night.

 

There is a pretty big difference between 82 and 93%. Your post makes it seem like they're performing as they always have, ie giving stable results, but if they jump up and down between these percentages they're not to be considered stable, IMO.

 

Well I think 80-90% in av-test.org means lower second tier in terms of AVs.

 

I've just seen them score rarely a little over 90s but usually in the 80s. My guess would be that they are averaging around 85% in tests

 

I think this means lower tier in terms of detection rate in tests. Or in real life environment, but who knows?

But this doesn't mean that the program isn't working well with the OS and other programs, makes your system crawling and begging for more resources, creates errors, has problems with updating or other components, doesn't update definitions daily, constantly interrupts your daily work or annoys you, or you wouldn't receive help from support staff if necessary.

 

I believe he didn't mean a referral to the .1% drop in detection rate (which would just be an engine bug in 2009, or a deletion of some rudimentary/outdated signatures - hey, no test has 100% perfect samples afterall ), but rather that BitDefender prefers to develop other parts of their program instead of improving the engine.

To some extent, it is correct as in recent years BitDefender's engine has remained somewhat constant but other parts of the program have improved - but hey, if something works then its well and good IMO

I guess the comment was meant in comparison to vendors like Eset and AVG, who have made some massive engine improvements every two releases or so (NOD32 2.5, 3.0, AVG 7, AVG 8, or even KAV 7 and 8.0)

I am not saying anything for or against such a statement, rather I am making a guess at what he meant and what I observed in general. I still believe that if something works, then it works

Edit: I'm sorry, it seems with this post I have veered off the topic. If required, I'll edit or delete the post.