AV-Test Product Review and Certification Report - 2010/Q2

Panda, AVG and Symantec offer better protection than the rest - congratulations

 

Agreed, imaging is the way to go. Most of the time when I see infections on official AV support forms, the removal seem to require manual removal steps and/or specialized tools.

 

@progress

And when it comes to real protection , prevention , real-time (not post cloud scanning) , Panda is the worst from all three Norton/Panda/AVG

This all proves my theory - Panda relies too much on cloud and too much for on-demand scanning

 

Whatever result they got is the result they got - but these "slow-down" figures make no sense to me. So many people tell me how happy they are having changed to Avast 5, from Avira, AVG, PC Tools and MSE. Are they all deluded?
I can testify that PC Tools SD + AV has more "slow-down" impact than Avast, on any PC I've tried them both on, but in this test PCT got 204 against Avast with 338.

 

Kaspersky, Panda, and Norton results are very good. AVG and G-DATA are good at detection, but did not perform well for removal of malware.

 

No need for them to be if the AV is good enough in detection though.

 

Good to see Norton in the top 3 in yet another test... yawn.

 

I am impressed with trendmicro. It was very good vs 0 day malware.

Hawk

 

Yep, but looking at repair and zero day protection there are others scoring much higher, see 3GUser post.


Until Panda has some sort of RegRun or Blitzblank: "when in the cloud you are endlessly happy, when rootted you wonder where your connection has gone"

 

Eset scored poor on blocking malware on or post execution. Only blocking 38% when the industry average is 63% according to their test. Eset didn't have the lowest, but this is still poor in comparison to how some of the other vendors scored. I like this sort of test. I believe it holds some validity. I hope they continue conducting these sort of test because they could be a big help in improving security software if the vendors take note of their products weaknesses. I like av-comparatives, but i've been curious about how the different vendors would score on their ability to block what they detect. It doesn't matter if your security software has a high detection rate, but is unable to block what it detects. Remember prevention is always better than the cure. Eset did do well in removal of infections detected so congratulations in this category. All i have to say to all the vendors is don't let this be a negative experience, but a chance to improve your product. (Of course taking into account that the test were conducted correctly).

 

I have argued that for years. Who cares if you get infected? Simply restore from your image. I use Prevx and WinPatrol. If anything gets past them and infects, just restore from image.

That is protection!

 

I see now, but 3Guser is able to make some photoshop to make norton score better (just kidding)

I dont get your second paragraph, sorry.

 

RegRun and BlitzBlank can remove files early in the log-on process (that is why Avast uses safe-mode scan). I think PrevX 4 will heading in this direction.

Scenario with RegRun like protection
1. You install a program, which is not known in the cloud
2. Behavioral analys tracks all the files installed and sends them to cloud to be analysed when new executable acquires ring-0 rights or does suspicious things.
3. A boot-up script is created which could remove the newly installed files and perform a system restore afterwards to obtain consistent system pre-install situation
4. A task is placed in the boot-up part (like RegRun Partzan Bootwatch) to offer you a roll back at next boot
5. When malware shuts down cloud based AV, the 'I am alive" bit is not updated.
6. At next boot when AV cloud "no connection' situation is met (because I am alive bit is not updated), boot-up part offers you to roll back and remove the malware which blocks access to cloud by the AV.

Regards

 

Thanks for the explanation

 

Avira matched Eset's 38% unfortunately.

 

3GUSER actually uses Microsoft's Paint and Microsoft's Snipping tool . I don't intend to invest in Adobe's Photoshop or use a free alternative . Paint and Snipping tool does what I need in my free time and in my work.

My screenshot above is taken with Snipping tool from the PDF files . I just added the programs' names with Paint. You can check with the PDF files in AV-Test's site.

 

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=just kidding I'm sure you already know that.

 

Sure , but I had to clarify because others have also "kidded" in the past with my screenshots and if they have been photoshoped

 

Panda response to AV-Test: AV-Test Q2-2010 Full Product Test Results.
Also, have a look at total score of each product. Panda, Kaspersky, Symantec shines.

 

The blog entrie seems to have been written by pbust.

 

@Kees1958

I posted that suggestion over at the PCAV forum so more of the Panda staff/Devs would see it: http://www.cloudantivirus.com/forum/thread.jspa?threadID=55023

 

okay now i know something is wrong bitdefender only got A 29 in slowdown.. so its faster than anything else out on the market i think not... its one of the heaviest i ever used i know that...even gdata was around 139 i believe.. no way those 2 are les of a hog than most everything else on the list

 

It is nice to see more and more reports also testing the system impact of these programs. I always look for a combination of strong protection in and lite system impact.

 

Interestingly, Norton Internet Security is the only tested product which demonstrated 100% protection against zero-day malware attacks and also had zero false detections and zero false warnings (June, 2010). A very nice combination of product performance attributes, in my opinion.

 

Only 16 samples used? Isn't that a small number? So Avira and Eset blocked six samples instead of the industry average of ten out of sixteen. I'm not sure that particular test carries as much weight as it's being given credit...