AV-Comparatives (February 2009)

I like ESET still for their top notch proactive malware detection and their still-low CPU footprint (the lowest tested in 2008, if I remember correclty.)

Although Avira and Symantec have excellent products and I certainly considered them before renewing my ESET license this year. But proactive malware detection and low CPU footprint were the deciding factors.

 

thanks for the information

but there is no big changes they are almost the same !!

 

Eset is not one of the best seems out of the rapport.

I always had Eset on my disk and when I installed V4 I did a computer scan of all discs.
V4 detected 5 .exe files with virus never detected by V3 in real time protection.
At the moment of use of these .exe files (time ago) the virus were not known by Eset.
They added it later and doing the On demand scan they were detected.

But .... The low CPU footprint of Eset is not less important.

 

Most people will not take FP into account suppose regular applications are tested well by vendors, even you encounter some, just submit or add to exception as you want, so it is not a right direction to mention a lot on FP to deduct the rate, just focus on how to test the real results in combined protection environments

I accept more than 100,000 FP in return for ~100% detection if my daily applications are not labeled as suspicious, this goes further to white-list, which means 100% detection and 100% FP, trust substitutes safety

 

fp's are not a problem as long as when yoiu send them they are fixed quickly.
in my case the one fp I sent to KL was fixed in roughly 1 hour.
the problem is when vendors eiether detect the same program as an fp everytime its updated or simply dont fix fp's

 

About 4-5 hrs at $250/hr is what we charge. LOL. In all seriousness FP's can be a real headache too and cost a business a lot of money in downtime.

 

1. Are you kidding?
2. If not... is that ethical and/or the standard price where you come from?

 

Nope, that includes reload the entire OS on all computers, reinstalling our Point of Sale software, rebuilding their database (if needed), installing any 3rd party software,etc.

 

Application filtering performs a much deeper scan on all executable during first execution and catches more malware than a right click scan would, as the emulation is deeper. For example, I assumed I had an undetected sample that I wanted to send to Kaspersky. I right click scanned and nothing was detected, however when I attempted to launch it it was classified as HEUR: Worm.win32.generic and blocked from starting. With regards to any AV that has behaviour detection you can't take the % as teh final detection rate on that test set.

 

I'm not interested in the results just wanted to say that Baz is right ,at my work we seen it many times a threat was blocked during launch while the on demand scan showed nothing.Saved us many times.
Also from my home PC even Avira has some Heur detections on launch.The dynamic tests when will come i would be interested to see.

 

Interesting to see eScan using the BitDefender engine now. Both G Data and eScan used to use the Kaspersky engine and now they both use the BitDefender engine. I think it's only a matter of time before F-Secure starts using the BitDefender engine as well. I think AVG's lower score is more indicative of its real-world performance. I'm still sticking with Avira, I do not find fp's very troublesome.

 

FP's are not a big issue to someone with 3-4 computers to deal with. In a network of hundreds--or thousands--of users and workstations, FP's can be a nightmare and cause havoc. As with detection rates, FP rate is an important consideration, and the two have to be balanced with performance, as well.

 

hi baz

your definitely right ، but what if a new virus was already on my system !!
what will the Application filtering do ?? the answer is nothing !! thats why i said KL must improve their detection rate

 

Technically it would scan it on first launch (aka after reboot) and block it from starting with the system

 

you got me there

but even Application filtering can’t detect everything !! and you can’t deny the fact that KL need a detection improvments

 

in that case, EVERY app could use a detection improvement since none are at 100% yet...

 

Im pretty sure Kaspersky is working on that daily like they always done

 

Kaspersky is doing very well I dont know why you are complaining tbh.
if malware isnt detected simply sent it to KL and it will be sorted out very fast.

 

kl has always been great about adding samples. and actually i have sent a few to symantec and they have been great about adding samples very fast. after seeing results i was considering going to normans but im not sure ill do that now... its a light and fast program but seems the detection is worse than most still

 

Keep in mind their new version wasn't tested, I've heart it's a lot better, but I have no experience with it myself so I can't provide you with anything useful.

 

Yes and they do matter even if u have a single PC if you are an ordinary user.

 

Again agree my friend. But look at the distinction in how they are rated. Based on what you are saying, one false positive is one to many.

 

The products that did not far as well this time are AVG, Norman, and Trustport (not surprising since Trustport uses both AVG and Norman).

Kingsoft Antivirus was a surprise. It nearly got the required 87%. Maybe it will do better next time.

 

Two AVs surprised me; McAfee, and F-Secure.

F-Secure has been one of my favorites, although I have not used it since I got the three year freebie for Kaspersky from Systweak that is good until 4/28/2010. Thanks trjam for the second one.

I do wonder why the detection rate has gone down to such an extent. I see no reason that it should be different from Kaspersky.

My other favorite is Avast, and it is doing well at detection. I must admit that FPs might be somewhat of a problem for me. I have not had one with Kaspersky.

Good job, and I like the new format.

Regards,
Jerry

 

thanks Jerry, trust me, F-Secures AV is still one of the best. I love it, especially since I can still get it for about $7.00.