Av-Comparatives Retrospective/Proactive Test May 2009

Thanks for the patient answers, Nick and Alex from Sunbelt.

Good to know that VIPRE is leading your testing, but third-party tests will be more reassuring to many. I own a VIPRE licence, its best on my netbook.

 

May be he might had some bad experience while evaluating kaspersky

 

It's #1 in its own little world that says little tho until its been put against tests others have. You could make a test of 1 sample make a sig for it detect it and say I score the highest.. 3rd Party PLEASE.


Edit. typo

 

Nonsense. Your tests mean nothing empirically; of course you would make that claim. You are light years away from the efficacy of Avira.

 

sorry for not saying this but i mean in my talk kaspersky ver 2009 !!

also yes its getting bad every time look at the detection rate not advanced+ thing !!

and yes i have seen many heurstic updates but man its still weak and can be defeated so easily !! many hackers are saying this !! even its signature detection has been defeated by some kiddie hackers

not just that even in my test a lot of viruses being missed by heurstic and Hips !!!

believe me this is the reality !!! if you got some new malwars you can try to test them by your self !!

 

Do you want to add a few extra exclamation marks on to that for added effect? (!!!)

As far as I am concerned you have been shouting and throwing your toys out of the pram in any thread that dares to mention Kaspersky in it but have absolutely no proof of your claims....all talk and no action IMO.....if you don't have anything useful to say then whats the point?

 

Didnt Jin perish, or go back to 1974 in Lost.

 

Baz, I wouldn't waste my time responding as these comparatives threads seem to bring out the fan boys and haters in equal measure.

Congrats to the usual suspect with the highest detection rate & to the vendors awarded the Advanced+ rating.

Cheers.

 

It was fine until page 3, I thought it might be the first thread without them, really nice conversations in page 1 & 2 though for anyone interested.

 

If it gets to out of control a mod will take care of it.. but lets not let it get that far.

 

No need to bash the Sunbelt guys. The malware crowd will do their job soon enough. As far I can see, the Sunbelt product is just another AV product with normal state-of-the-art technology. Which in this combination and with similar capabilities is present in several other AV products already - which are easily beaten by the malware professionals. There is no reason to believe Sunbelt will be spared and that the malware crowd will ignore them.

The score could be easily much much MUCH better. Working with way too limited resources. But it's funny to see what one person with a bit dedication and low-tech can achieve.

 

Although their AV is a youngster compared to other vendors, maybe when they are officially tested the results will be surprising. Depends upon which other company's database they are using.

 

Yep they didn't allow any web to be woven.

 

Prove it, then make these conjectures. As of now and for a long while, Avira's biggest quality has not been the fact that it has done well in tests, the consistency is what should be applauded, in this case, none of the Avira editions tested in past or present have thrown a curve ball, that to me is the most important of all the aspects of a good AV.

 

mmm poor of norman in spite of sandbox and DNA matching tchnology .i hope norman can continue improve collect more signature and enhace the frequency of virus definitioj update menawhile improve the sandbox detection and had better improve the scaning speed

 

I'm a little baffled, maybe I missed out on a previous post. When did I say something negative about Avira? It is an excellent engine, I have nothing against it at all.

The context of testing is important -- an antivirus product has to be looked at in its ability to both detect and remediate malware. This is historically where classic antivirus engines have had difficulty.

Avira, ESET, F-Secure and other very, very good engines have had repeated problems at publications like PC Magazine for this reason. Detection high, remediation not so high. You can't just run a scanner against a boatload of malware and look at the pure detection stats. You have to look at the whole universe of issues -- detection, remediation, zero day detection, etc.

Fwiw, what NickH said earlier about our using another database at the start of our development is not totally correct. 4 years ago, we started CounterSpy with a co-development agreement with Giant Company, which got bought by Microsoft, and we continued to get definition updates from Microsoft to supplement our own research. However, that deal is long gone. VIPRE is completely done from scratch, and does not use much (if any) of the old CounterSpy engine/database.

Alex Eckelberry
CEO, Sunbelt Software

 

Very true,Avira has been a top draw product for as long as I can remember.

 

Not really true. Back in February 2004 with AV-Compratives' first report Avira was the very worse of them all. They improved during the year scoring somewhat better in 2005. Since 2006, when they released version 7, they really started to became of what they are now.

 

Then is it reasonable to expect, VIPRE to miss legacy/old viruses ? Since in the developing world, many of the older malware is still floating.

Is that why Sunbelt is apprehensive about joining AV-Comparative, AV-Test or VB100 which have a lot of older samples in their HUGE sample set.

 

Its your claim of surpassing all leading AVs, when you prove yourself in independent tests done by AV comparatives and likes, only then will you redeem yourself, till then, statements like the one you make, however true it might be proven in future doesn't seem to benefit your credibility as CEO of Sunbelt. The Avira mention was not directed at you or your product. PC Mag is far removed from a credible source for AV testing, as Vijayind points out above, why don't you participate in avcomparatives testing?

 

I'm sorry until I seriously see some 3rd party tests on this software and how it runs I wont take it seriously. Once I see some solid evidence that this AV is a good quality product and not just words from PC Mag (which unfortunately holds no value what so ever) Will I consider offering it to my clients. Also coming here and spouting off that its leaps and bounds ahead of the others just makes you look like a fool, If your going to make claims like that put some evidence behind it or don't say it at all.

And no I'm NOT bashing sunbelt this is the same thing I EXPECT from any AV especially when making claims like this.

 

Girls? Can't we all just get along?

 

No one is fighting.. everyone is just stating there opinion on the topic that is all.

 

There's a lot of posts that are bashing PC Mag, but I can't really see anything that's wrong with it. How isn't it a credible source?

 

They can be bias but that does not happen much. Main thing is how they grade products, a product can have awesome removal and prevention. But if it don't have good parental controls it will receive a LOW score compared to something that cant detect **** and gets a high score. There system is very flawed and normally shows the best "Sponsor" in the better light.