New test from Anti-Malware.ru

http://translate.google.com/transla...alware.ru/node/885&sl=ru&tl=en&hl=de&ie=UTF-8

 

lol looks like none of the AV's did amazingly well, but defensewall owned that test

 

Yeah, well done Ilya.

 

yep, congrats Ilya, you earned it.

 

impressive from drweb once again, shame it was 4.44 tested, but nevermind

defensewall as everyone knew, achieved high scores, that thing is a beast, just a little annoying to run. lol

take away the paranoid detectors and AV's that include hips modules, and its AVG and bitdefender who achieve great results with drweb just behind

eset?

.. but then again, its just another one of those tests

the more i see them, the more im left un-impressed and to be honest, un-interested lately.

 

If this analysis uses Virustotal, it has already been discredited:
http://www.prevx.com/blog/106/Why-using-VirusTotal-for-AV-testing-is-a-bad-idea.html
Accurate AV testing should be left to professionals such as AV-Comparatives, AV-Test.org, etc.

 

You forgot your favourite Avira who has for now only the guard which is still very good
Bitdefender has a behaviour blocker and a registry control.I don't know if those components ware used and what was considered as pass if so as i didn't understand the methodology exactly.

 

I really would like another "professional" company to do tests, not this virustotal/honeypot/corrupt files nonsense.

 

I agree 100%.

 

since when do AM use VirusTotal, have i missed something?

 

Also most people won't come into contact with the test set files or similar unless they're going into areas where they exist.

 

lol, totally expected, just read between the lines...

"Avira Premium Security has been effective because of the high level of detection of exploits (see Table 3 of the full record of the test), and packed objects (specifically, the detection of malicious software used in the Packer)."

it does not offer good protection, regardless of what anyone on this forum may say.

also, i forgot about BitDefenders behaviour controls, so AVG it is then

even more impressed with the good olde doctors result

 

From the article:

 

They tested NIS2008 instead of NIS2009. The differences between SONAR on those two versions is night and day. Thats why NIS did so poorly with 08.. Why in the world do these "tests" compare 08 and 09 products of different vendors.

 

hmm maybe, but it was up against drweb 4.44 which is an old engine now.

 

From 34 samples Kaspersky failed just 1, for 3 there is only partially infection (main infection is avoided and system files and core of OS are intact), rest it passed, I am really glad to see someone done on execution test, This is real and complete degree test. BRAVO thanks and keep it up
BTW where is Comodo
P.S. From those kind of tests people can clearly see that Matousec tests (or at least scoring methodology) do not worth too much, look at Outpost

 

Avira did superb as usual with its high level of detection, it was but to be expected.

 

Prevx found fault with a test that doesn't show them in the best light. That's hardly an objective opinion. On the other hand, I notice that those apps which do well do NOT find fault.

*If you can't raise the bridge, lower the water.*

 

If you had bothered to read the article, you would see that often an
AV's techniques cannot be implemented by an online scanner.
It has nothing to do with Prevx.

 

Oh.. so they tested NIS2008. Why would they use NIS2008 when 2009 has been out for three months

 

in which part of it is? where it is written?

thanks

ps: excellent reporting

Regards

 

Hi,

perhaps because the test was done in October 2008

Regards

 

Here:
https://www.wilderssecurity.com/showpost.php?p=1382711&postcount=13

 

yes, I have already seen

but I do not find this part of the text

where?
In the "Methodology used in testing antiviruses for the treatment of active infections"?
or "Analysis of active infections treatment test results and awards"?
or in report pdf?

thanks

 

Методология сравнительного тестирования The methodology of comparative testing