interesting anti virus tests results ! look inside

I'll add my .02 cents. I've used Avast Home, Avira PE, AVG, Rising and CAVS. Out of the 5 I'd say Avast Home is the best and I only use the Standard shield. Gives the fewest problems, always updates, never been infected while using it and a very good forum. Avira PE is excellent also but I've had some problems using it in the past. AVG and Rising you could keep. I'm trialing Comodos AV and find it ok but needs some work. Too many FP's and still a question mark on detection. I love their FW/hips however.

Ice

 

Virus tests taken one by one may not give an accurate assessment of the actual detection rate of AVs. If we look at the most respected in the industry - Virus Bulletin - as an example, it has "failed" Avira for one single FP. I did, however check some of VB latest results about some well known companies:

Kaspersky 45 Success/17 failure/0 no entry
Symantec 48 Success/6 failure/ 8 no entry
Eset 54 S / 3 F / 5 no entry
Avira 16 S /3 F /43 no entry
DrWeb 25 S /25 F /12 no entry

Dr Web always fares badly in just about any test I have read, whereas the others (in this list) have small differences that can be attributed to test procedures.

 

exactly, the most respected and it has already been proven to be useless.

however, because of such AVs like Drweb and Trend Micro they are revising their testing methods, or maybe already have done

Drweb and others who have pulled out, im sure are watching the situation.

there is yet, a single test out-there that tests Drwebs technology, they are all the same, just different collections, single file ondemand detection, and even then, they cant get it right with a messed up collection including all sorts of files that are harmless.

if the testing methods improve, im sure they will all re-enter, it really is as simple as that.

if you want some good results for drweb, head over to anti-malware.ru, however...... quite a few Drweb employees also slate these tests for what they are, even though scores are good.

 

I have seen more on this board that is unreasonable than reasonable. It is consistent that any critique of a specific AV will cause a firestorm.

Emotional-based thought processes do that.

 

You are often critizising the tests, but do you have any suggestions how to make the tests better?

And why is it so bad for Dr-Web to test using on-demand scanning? From what I know about this AV it doesn't have any HIPS or behaviour blocker etc., so I believe test results should be quite the same with on-demand vs a more realistic realtime scan. Dr.Web also has good unpacking abilities (according to you ) so this could give it an additional advantage in on-demand scanning because it can unpack additional layers of .EXE packing. So then I don't understand how you can use this as an excuse for poor results in tests?

I would understand better if it was e.g. Kaspersky because of their PDM-module which is only useful in realtime.

EDIT: Also the free Dr.Web Cure-IT comes to my mind, which is often recommended for cleaning infected PCs. What type of scanning do you rely on when using Cure-IT - yes, the on-demand scanner.

 

I barely scan my machine, I ain't an addict.

For years drweb has kept me virus free.

I hear the same results from all drwebbers, so if drweb really had the detection rates some people claim, by now I should be highly infected!

I know all the bad places, I have my own collections like any 'fan' of the industry, no test can even compare to what I check and do myself.

If I had to ask for improvements, it would not be detection (although its always welcome), it would be to introduce a faster scanner, improve it's GUI (which is coming) and for them to improve their VMS submission service.

As for detection, I've used it many years, used in many situations and don't need any assurance from these tests to tell me so.

Because drweb gets this label from these tests as medicore/average detection, it actually gets more coverage about curing machines, and you can't cure what you don't detect

And because of this, Drweb has proven itself more than any Antivirus I hear about on this forum.

As for improving the tests, I don't know, it's not my
Job to know, I have my job to worry about

More improvements still to come, there will always be, and more technologys being worked on, there is definatly more to come.

I speak my mind, and I like to think I always speak the truth, whether people agree or not, and I've certainly had my fair share of arguments with drweb in the past, but alerting them to certain things, bumps it up the to-do list, and I believe it benfits everyone.

Fanboy, sure... I use it and I'm a fan of what they achieve, but does my life revolve around my antivirus, certainly not, I do not mess with my av, I havnt changed my settings since installation, and I only open
Drweb to complete a scan once a month or fortnight etc.

I try to be as resonable as possible on here, but some people just don't listen or know anything about what is actually protecting them and how so.

 

I know someone who runs LUA and uses no AV and tells me for years, he has been virus free. Good for him I say, live and be happy in your delusion. Same goes for people who think their low tiered AV is keeping them virus free and all tests are flawed, well be happy. There is a crud anti virus sold in India called Quick Heal, its real piece of garbage, never tested by any site period. How do they manage to survive? Well they are pushed aggressively by OEM assemblers who trap gullible clients here by telling them its an India specific AV dealing the local home grown viruses for which big guys like Norton, Avira, Avast have no clue. Well they do manage to trap quite a few gullible newbies but then when that newbie learns something or gets truly infected, perceptions change.

By the way, if consistency is a definition of a good AV, Avira has proved itself time and again with predictability thats almost to the point of being mundane. Yep, Avira's only crime has been consistency, its been a major pitfall for them.

 

What is Dr. Web's technology?

 

Ah the key words where spoken. The Fewest Problems,always updates and never been infected while using it and very good forum. +1

 

This the type of thing I love:-no matter what ant empirical data may prove a fan will believe just what he wants to believe! magic!
And over the years I have seen some good excuses used for DrWebs showing in tests!I think the only one I have seen this poster happy with was on where a test showed DrWEb to be best at cleaning an already infected PC:-Now that test WASN'T flawed! lol(probably the only one that wasn't)

 

drweb is the best at cleaning, they don't need a test to prove this.

Like I said, all companys do their own internal tests, and they do KNOW the current state of testing.

The ones who keep quiet, are the ones reaping benefits from lies.

Now, I don't even work in the industry, so no smoke gets blown up my ass with my comments, but I've been posting similar things for years now, avira still fail to show their true colours, they still avoid my posts, and most of all, they avoid these questions from their own customers,

... Oh dear, oh dear.

Fake protection!

 

Avira's cleaning test have been proved time and again by various sites and even though other's try and spread FUD, fact remains fact. Avira not only detects best but removes as good as other top notch AVs.

I guess the loser who is running away from tests and claims that they have some special technology that can't be tested is the snake oil salesman here and since direct allegations are out I have no qualms about revealing the real name of the cowardly culprit namely Dr. Web. All its is is a Web of deceit. They should rename it to Dr. Voodoo Black magic Abracadabra. Also they should put a caveat that no tests are good enough for its secret magic technology.

Why would Avira care two hoots about a FUD spreader fanboy who has no standing in the AV world is beyond any reasoning. Avira goes where rest comes to a level field, that is the battlefield of tests and when the gauntlet is thrown, smoke clears, the real person that is Avira is there proving itself time and time again.

 

Stop throwing around the word fanboy like it's something offensive, it's quite obvious you're an Avira fanboy.

Why do people make these threads, it only ever leads to arguing about who's is the best AV, which is utter pointless because you're not going to convince anyone to change.

Stop wasting your time.

 

Why is it offensive to you? Why are you getting irked. Have I told anyone to change their AV? No one is saying who is the best of worse. if Avira wins, then ackowledge that with grace instead of saying tests are flawed or that my AV uses super secret technology beyond realm of current tests. Thats snake oil sales to me. If Dr. Web wins, I will do the same and bow to the emperor of AV and not cry that tests are flawed. Fanboy is one who is busy spread FUD with no reasoning. Tests will be done and people will post it regardless of how a fanboy will react.

BTW whose Fanboy are you? Dr. Web maybe as it seems to have touched a real raw nerve

 

So true he is,

Why is avira avoiding and been avoiding my comments for soooo long?

They won't admit the truth in their fake protection, and the FANBOYS will not admit it either, they ain't even attempting to find this out, how would I gain from telling lies on a forum?

You people are pathetic, if you admitted my words to be the truth or got avira to, they could then work on creating real protection and improvements would arrive for everyone.

Dismissing the truth because you don't like it, or don't want
Look into it to find out, just seems rather pointless to me.

 

Hey, here's an antivirus test I just conducted. Accuracy guaranteed!

Avira: detected 0%, DrWeb: detected 100%.

You were saying something about bowing?

 

Can you tell me what comments are you referring to? You emailed them?
TIA

 

There is no such thing as the best AV, but some are better then others and all of you very well know that. I disagree that on demand testing is not "important", it is. I do not know what samples all the testing organizations use, but I am not convinced that the ones used are "harmless", why test then (everything is possible tough).
Bear with me here, if a program has high detection rate in the test, then that program will be able to block all the viruses it detected in real time also which is by far more important, if it fails to detect the file it will not be able to block it in real time and the user will get infected.
Also if there are equal conditions for all programs, which appears to be the case in most of the tests I've seen, then if the program is good-> it should do good.
As for Dr Web and Comodo, looks like Comodo has more more signatures then Dr Web so based on that it should have an edge, also now the both include heuristics so this will be interesting.

 

I'm sick and tired to read about your irrational comments about Avira. I personally couldn't give a damn about any AV, but I've noticed that you have hijacked more than one thread about Avira and managed to get it closed. Nobody here can claim to say the truth because we are all hiding behind anonymous avatars, but personally if there is someone here who is pathetic it is the person who can't substantiate what he or she is trying to prove, and so far you've been at best only speculating.

I think with the right strategy nowadays one doesn't even need an AV, just give one reason why I should even trial Dr Web: your word?

 

I take a big bow..............of relief.

 

Honestly, I find most of this petty bickering about AVs to be pointless too. Why don't you move on and enjoy your choice and focus on other things?

 

Off topic post removed.

Focus on the technical aspects of the topic.

Blue

 

We are pathetic for using Avira and not Dr. Web? This is a direct attack on us Avira users.

 

The problem is you post some serious allegations both in this thread and in others, mainly targeted at Avira.

But you are always very vague in your criticism. Avira offering "fake protection" is a serious claim and would need some serious documentation.

Also that Dr.Web's amazing technology can't be tested against other products. Why is that? Maybe Dr.Web uses different tech than others, but the purpose of all different technology (heuristics, HIPS, behaviour blockers, emulators...) is after all to detect and block malware from infecting computers. There are different ways to archive this goal, and maybe you're too obsessed with the choice of technoology, because sometimes a product looks very good on the paper, but doesn't perform that good in practice even though the technology seems better than competitors.

Actually Avira is not just a repeated test-winner, but is a also a very popular AV that many people rely on every day. The popularity would drop quickly if it only offered fake protection

And you claim that noone you know has been infected with Dr.Web. But in all statistics numbers is important. Just because you and your buddy have avoided malware doesnt mean everyone else will. Think about it another way: Norton is by far the most popular AV world-wide, and because of the massive number of users I believe that more Norton-customers have been infected than with competing AVs. Not because Norton offers "fake protection" but because there are more (naive) users running Norton than with other AVs

 

I almost cannot believe a logical post that exposes contradictions, assertions alleged to be fact, and various formal and informal logical fallacies in a number of posts on this thread.

Congratuations!

BB