Can you trust anti-virus rankings?

http://www.pcauthority.com.au/News/126228,can-you-trust-antivirus-rankings.aspx

 

Well, I rely more on unbiased testing, rather than the statements made by the Software Companie's employees themselves.

And what ever the CEOs say, it's all merely for the sake of protecting their products, it's a type of marketing strategy they follow. Can you ever imagine Eugene Kaspersky saying, "Our product has poor spyware and Rouge App. detection rate, Avira has way better heuristics than ours. Refer av-comparatives and judge yourself the relatively poor heuristics detection rate of our product".................NAAH...............

So, concluding my post, I'll like to say that we the customers must ignore the statements by Giant Software firms, and rely more upon unbiased testing. We the customers have the legal right to choose our commodities, no matter if it's an Insurance Policy or Software.

 

your just a troll so i dont trust anything you say.
the fact is drweb,trend micro and now Kaspersky are telling the consumer that VB100 tests are flawed.
remember Eugene Kaspersky maybe be a CEO but he is also an expert in the field and knows what he is talking about.

 

I dont rely in tests or ranking but the tests I do.
We see a lot of nonsenses in AV rankings all over the world...

 

Actually the best thing you can do is to have an image (Acronis/Shawdow Protect) of your drive that is up to date. If any AV fails you, you simple restore to the pre-infection state. AVs are not the best defense against malware- images are. And, you get the added bonus that if your system gets trashed for some non-malware related issue or your hard drive crashes, you can go back to a point before anything happened.

 

Actually Kaspersky has start as well to not hang up in detection world right now, it seem they have step back a little.

And what Kaspersky says that their behaviour based blocking is detecting everything, maybe it does but still Behaviour blocking is that the AV Lab is Lazy and leave to the customer to eather allow or not a program/file and the user get confuised and don't know what to.

But i still think Kaspersky is very good and it's a TOP AV.

 

How and when do you know it has failed you?

 

the best way to check the efficacy of av's would be to select a sample of say 1000 users of kaspersky or avira and monitor their pc's for six months as the users go about doing what they normally do on the net.....and after the said period an evaluation should be made on the infections...attacks or the lack of it...this would at least give a real world view of what av profiling is all about....

 

Enough is enough! No one is holding a Gun on your head and telling you to read my posts. What's wrong with you?

 

can you trust rankings

a long time ago a very smart guy by the name of vesselin bontchev wrote that there is no best anti-virus, only very good ones and ones you should probably just ignore... he was testing av products at the time...

rankings ignore this wisdom and try to say that A is better than B which is better than C... as such rankings, per se, should be ignored - look instead at the underlying performance the rankings are based on... did the product fare really, really badly, or does it more or less keep pace with the other products... if there's not a huge difference between the performance of product A and the average performance of the major good products then product A is about as good as the rest of them...

as for the tests mentioned in that article, there ARE problems with the vb100 test (it's based on the wildlist which is more or less exclusive to viral malware), and the secunia test is pretty much garbage... that's not to say there aren't better tests out there - look for testing bodies that are participating in the AMTSO (anti-malware testing standards organization) effort to improve the overall quality of anti-malware product testing and trying to incorporate the best practices that are being developed...

 

he may be an expert, but he has to say and do what's best for his company...

just because someone is an expert doesn't mean you should accept what they say without question... question everything...

 

images are good but they are not a defense, they are a recovery option... defense generally refers to prevention, not recovery...

 

IMO test are a general Guide only.I use whatever runs light and does not give me problems or anoy me in anyway and does not flag everything as a virus,updates effortless and often, has support when needed and has a acceptable price tag.On that note at this time NOD32 gives me exactly that.

 

the best AV is the one that saves your computer from Malware, it doesn't matter what tests show, it matters where you go & if the AV your running at that time can keep you safe. Trust me there is not one person here that if they were running a new AV & it eithr found something that thier old one missed or would block a trojan where they would not be impressed. As I always say the best test is the one you run in actual online use...

 

The key is generally as you said. I am using a broader definitional concept of defense. Am image is the ultimate defense.

 

You have to be joking. If you don't know the answer to that question, how do you use a computer?

 

Uhm, sorry but I don't buy your arguments. It's like saying that buying a second hard drive is a defense against HD failures... No, it's not. It's recovery option.

 

Relax, it was a simple question..
But since you ask, what does one thing got to do with the other?

You say once it fails, you simply revert to an earlier image. Since we're speaking in general terms, if it failed, you have no indication that anything is wrong..

 

depends on what type of malware tbh.
if its spyware that pops up loads of messages and disables control panel you will notice.
but if its a trojan or malware hidden by a rootkit hiding you wont notice.

images are definatly recovery and not a defence.

 

We can come up with all sorts of scenarios indeed. But if you speak in general terms, it should apply in some general way as well.

Exactly. And it certainly won't inform you need to restore.

 

yup its easy to work that out plus ive got an assignment on it lol.

 

I agree images are definatly recovery and not defense and IMO if one has to resort to images often as a defense to recover from malware IMO there doing something wrong unless intentional for testing purposes.

 

antivirus rankings huh ?
I just subimit to eset, avira and some other AV's at least 30 dangerous NEW Undetected samples that i got today.

My friend would run them and install them then he would not be protected with eset or Avira or any other AV out there

Cheers

 

This is the biggest BS I have heard.. but not surprising coming from Kaspersky. There are only two differences between a PoC and an exploit in the wild:
- one is that the PoC may not contain shell-code
- the PoC may not be in the wild YET (but could be tomorrow).

So if Kaspersky cannot detect a PoC web exploit event though it was introduced onto the machine through a browser, that tells me that that signatures are detecting shell-code which can easily be changed and hence their signatures are easily defeatable OR

they are just plain lazy and dont write sigs for PoC sigs.

 

So in other words, with technical jargons, Eugene Kaspersky is trying to tell us theirs is the best, haven't we heard that before.