Av-Comparatives Retrospective/Proactive Test May 2009

oh!! as always kaspersky is getting bad !! i think in the next on-demand test its will get only ADVANCED

 

You're kidding right? It had few false positives and not far away from the usual top-tier NOD. 2010 will probably shake it up even more.

 

IMO a few FPs on obscure products are a small price to pay for Avira's vastly superior detection of real malware in that test.

 

But so will malware, you can't really predict the AV will get better, or worse.

 

no im not kidding !! see their old results and compare them to this ، they are sucking a hard time !! also they haven’t improved their lousy heurstic and generic detection in ver2010 so no shaking

 

You may be right... but you should not forget that the lower scores of Kaspersky Labs could be attributed by: It has been the favorite attack spot of various virus writers across the globe, attackers specifically target their security products especially antivirus

 

Interesting.

It doesn't mention the cleaning abilities of the AV. Is there some information out there that can shed some light on this ?

Somewhat off topic: I've been looking for a chart regarding the market share of AVs, but couldn't find any. Does anyone how/where to obtain it ?

 

Well, Norman has landed at the bottom of the pack. Even with its advertised "Sandbox" & "DNA matching" technology, it has failed to get even decent results.
Also if AVG 8.5 with Sana Labs tech had been used, there would have been a better show by them. We'll have to wait till the next proactive test to see if really AVG advertising is real.
MS is looking very very good !! If Morro even suffices to be decent, they will make a big dent to the competition. Maybe that's why Symantec is bundling ASK.com, while McAfee & AVG are pushing Yahoo!

Wonder when VIPRE will be included in such tests ?? Also does any one know why Authentium/F-Prot was not tested ? They were part of the Feb'09 test, but are missing from the proactive test.

 

Proactive part in AVG from Sana doesn't work on-demand because it's a behavior blocker. Besides, their tech is not all that hot anyway. I was totally dissapointed by that thing compared to excellent ThreatFire.

 

You are right, only on-execution tests can determine the effectiveness of BB or HIPS. Guess we'll have to wait till the Dynamic tests, to see their effectiveness.

 

Yes, but I was more pointing at the results it had, that's an Advanced+ rating. Looking at the other products, you can see that it gets harder and harder to reach high detection while keeping the FPs down.

 

Right, right... how old were you again?

 

I believe 1. most of that technology is ran on file execution 2. They used the old Norman (not the recent version)

 

I actually checked with our product manager about this recently and he tells me "We’re getting our detections up to world-class before we submit to the public testing. We’re real close…"

I do know that with the internal testing we've done we've scored very near the top. I believe we'll be included in the next round of tests.

 

Yet Avira and Nod are both targeted by the same attacks and manage to keep there detections up. Kaspersky really has no excuse and only them self's to blame...

And before you state it I'm not bashing kasper just stating the truth.

 

You have to keep in mind that

a) the malware gets more and more anti-heuristic/anti-generic, more experienced in breaking generic detections

b) that the other av products are constantly improving their detection also

So it's hard already to maintain the very same level of detection.

The most popular AV products are attacked the most, the malware writers are especially interested in breaking the heuristic/generic detection.

 

I checked on Norman site (http://www.norman.com/downloads/home/58573/en-us) 7.10 is their latest version.

Also I thought their "DNA" was just generic signatures and "Sandbox" was heuristic and not a VM like VIPRE's MX-V.

But still their advertising does look precarious when such results are floating in public view. Hope they can regain some lost ground in Dynamic Tests later in the year.

 

Does it mean Windows Defender had good generic detection as well or only One Care product?

 

@Stefan Kurtzhals
Well said! Even though you're not too exited with 'your' score, still a h*ll of a good job!

@Durad
Seen quite some generic detections from Windows Defender as well. However they (Defender and OneCare) don't seem to use the very same database/engine.

@IBK
Thanks a lot for your efforts again!

 

Hi Nick,
Can you clarify, the text in bold.
As you saying that currently you are selling a slightly inferior product and that VIPRE has yet to technologically go GOLD ?

Regards,
VijayIND

 

Not at all. As I mentioned, with our internal testing we're scoring near the top of the list. Our goal of course is to top the list or at least get as close as possible on the public testing. As I also previously mentioned, we're very close.

 

There seems to be a mis-alignment of communication here.

There are a wealth of third-party testing organizations that we work with. VIPRE has been certified by West Coast Labs for 100% detection and remediation of all Wildlist viruses. Our product has been tested independently by TUV and Passmark for performance and received some of the highest scores in the testbed; it has also been tested for detection by PC Magazine and PC Pro, where in both cases it scored highly. We are working closely with third-party testing organizations such as AV-Test and AV-Comparatives and expect to have a third party validation from one of these firms in the near future. Our tests continue to show VIPRE as a leader in detection on in-the-wild malware, easily outpacing leading antivirus companies.

 

Hello JinK.
I will summarise the charts from 2007 to 2009 AV comparative results for KL.
Febuary 2007 on demand test Advanced Plus
May 2007 Retrospective/Proactive Test Standard
August 2007 on demand test Advanced Plus
November 2007 Retrospective/Proactive Test Advanced Plus
Febuary 2008 on demand test Advanced Plus
May 2008 Retrospective/Proactive Test Standard
August 2008 on demand test Advanced Plus
November 2008 Retrospective/Proactive Test Advanced
May 2009 Retrospective/Proactive Test Advanced Plus

you will notice the on demand tests are Advanced plus .
You should also notice Kaspersky is improving in the Retrospective/Proactive Tests.
how can getting advanced plus for both tests be a bad thing?
the heristics are improving all the time.

 

I see no "mis-alignment" in NickHSunbelt's communication. IMO, he was communicating just fine. Open. Straightforward. Easily understood.

OTOH, your unsupported, nebulous claim is mere hype. Nada mas.

 

It's a bit tricky, tho actually we started getting more and more reviews