Anti-Malware Test Lab - Testing of proactive antivirus protection II

http://www.anti-malware-test.com/?q=node/76
Please do not start a war here!!

 

Hmm, Norman must have gotten Platinum.

Congrats to Eset also

 

Avira got screwed... I'll take 71% detection with 0.13% False Positives any day.

 

Main problem with AVIRA is that they have absolutelly s**tty FP fixing rate for no-cd patches and similar grey area programs. These are critical for me, but they refuse to fix them. And i totally hate that.

You may ask why, but i do lots of gaming on ACER Aspire One, a small portable notebook (netbook) that doesn't have any CD/DVD optical drive.
So only way to play games there is to use no-cd patches.
So AVIRA is completelly useless there.

I'd pick vendor that has lower detection rate but also fixes this grey area stuff instead AVIRA. Be it crack or patch, if it's false detection i really don't care what that thing serves for. It's not malicious and thats all they'd have to know.
So until they start doing that at AVIRA labs, i'll be using something else.
avast! or Rising Antivirus preferably...

I would also like to point out one important thing regarding avast!.
Everyone, and i mean EVERYONE are complaining over lack of heuristics in avast!. Well, who's your heuristics God now? It's no worse than others and completelly on par with others that have bunch of checkboxes and settings for heuristics and they hype them as best thing since sliced bread.
avast! has proved itself SEVERAL times in AV-Comparatives and AV-Test plus this one that lack of checkboxes and settings for heuristics doesn't automatically mean that antivirus sucks and that it completelly lacks any kind of proactive defenses.

 

congratulations to Kaspersky

its getting better everytime

 

The problem with cracks and no-cd patches is that, more often than not, they contain malicious code. They are also almost always packed, so that only increases the chances of identifying them as malware. Since these are not official, Avira probably thinks that instead of worrying about them, they'll just leave them alone. IMHO, it's better to be aggressive when it comes to things like these. If one really wants to use one, then he/she can include it in the exceptions. That's (one of) the reasons it's there.

 

Ok, I'll take 52% detection with 0% FP's any day then


Cheers

 

Well done KL!
same result as nod32 and less fp's
its quite impressive.

 

"The detection rate is more important than some FP", this sentence you will find on Avira forums

 

No. That doesn't apply here at all.
I don't mind false positives that get fixed eventually.
AVIRA doesn't fix these AT ALL. So that IS a major problem.

 

AVG isn't that bad though

 

Is not a big deal since you can make exclusions,You are an advanced user you have a good ideea what's clean or not, i don't get it why you are upset.
They are not such a large company and their virus researchers must focus on the real threats.

 

I agree, congratulations to Kaspersky, BitDefender & ESET. I'm actually surprised at BitDefender, so nice job.

 

I see, Avira doesn't fix all this grayware because it may be dangerous I also don't like this behavior, I go with AVG

 

Good job AVG

 

Well, ALWIL is small but they also dedicate lots of manpower into fixing FP's. Also every no-cd or whatever, doesn't automatically mean it's malware.
So saying it "might" be dangerous doesn't really justify that.
Adding 20 or 30 exclusions just because of that is just plain lame and annoying.
I rather install AV that doesn't have such lame problems and restrictions.
And i will unless they'll change.

 

71%..........thats the magic number that matters to me and if the FP was around 1% maybe I might worry.

 

Poor TRENDMicro. Almost every time i see them in a competition i see them second too the end of the row . They must have liked positioning at the end

 

Now hold on there cowboy, those are some mighty strong words. I think Stefan should be the one to say yea or nay to that statement.

 

Of course even though Norman was not tested, if any of you ever happen to be the one in a million that gets one with them, err, its:
falsepositive@norman.no
not that you will ever need to though.

 

Why should you have to always deal with fp's which never get fixed?
why not change to a vendor that deals with real malware and has minimal fp's?
you can have both.
you will always have some fp's but some vendors are much better at sorting them out.
last time i sent an fp to Kl i got a reply in less than an hour and was fixed in the next update.

 

From what i've seen, Stefan also has ppl above him who approve or deny stuff.

 

Holy Smoking Joe Frazier, this is true.

 

Amen bro

 

Good showing by Dr.Web, but I don't get the discrepancy between Kaspersky and F-Secure .