AV-Test.org Review and Certification Report - 2010/Q3

I suspect this certification process already acumulates some errors ... Avira slowdown 230 sec. Bitdefender 126 sec. ... this is a 100 % difference, who believes that Not really surprised with Panda ... or Avast ... G-Data and Kaspersky, for once, did well

 

I find some of the performance results odd. Some that were slow in the last test, are fast in this one. Is that mostly due to the change between Win7 & WinXP?

 

I see the Avast apologists/rationalizers are here in full force. In this test & other tests (such as MRG) Avast did poorly. Live with it.

 

Not me. If Avast does poorly in any test, they need to learn from it, get off their butts, and do better. Plain and simple and no excuses.

 

Any Avast users care to share their virtualization settings? I download quite a bit and use Google or some other Chromium browser about 90% of the time. For videos I normally use Firefox.

 

I sandbox my browsers all the time. Every now and then I delete the contents. I use mine with default settings.

 

Only change I've made from default is to check "Show tags..."

BTW, Firefox and "Video Downloader" add-on now successfully downloading outside sandbox for me by - wait for it - reverting to default download locations for both (kinda obvious really ). I'd still prefer to be prompted for a location each time but at least it works now.

 

Good test

Kaspersky, Norton, PC Tools performed really well. Even a satisfactory performance by AVG too. I wished they could test the 2011 version

 

The results are a bit strange though i have to agree that avast! has to work slightly more on Behavior Shield to block regular malware as well, not just exploits and to work on both, 32bit and 64bit systems. Considering most behavior blockers do work on both i expect no less from them either.

 

Personally, I'd be a little forgiving of their results because their detection is not bad, disinfection/repair is decent, and cost to performance ratio is very good (for all editions).....So yes, they need to improve but I wouldn't be too disappointed about these results.

 

ok,
I'll try these out

 

The problem with these tests is that they use the default configuration. Kudos to Norton because their default config must be very good. My question is how would Norton, Avast, Comodo, KIS, and all the others perform with optimum settings? Probably all great and more or less "equally" great.

I see a lot of independent tests with Avast and it doesn't seem to do that great in many of them. But, the hidden jewel of Avast Pro and AIS is the new sandbox. If they were to test Avast with the sandbox active I am sure the results would be very different. This is the same with Comodo and KIS, along with OA++ and any other softwares that have more secure ways to not have to rely on signatures and innovative guessing (heuristics, behavior blocking).

 

Not always.

AV comparatives will test based on what the vendors requested.

For AVIRA and some other they will test at a "high" setting whereas for others, such as F-Secure, they will test at the default setting, as stated in their test results.

 

Can I ask why Comodo doesn't show up in the list?

 

Either not tested or tested but not published (yet)

Gerard

 

Refused to participate, perhaps?

 

I must disagree with you . It is not a problem that the tests might have been condicted with default settings . Actually , this is how it must be. In the IT business and in the real world , when an end user or small business user buys a security software and they install it themselves , they will have to use the default protection settings - simply because they are unaware how and if they need to change them. A security product must be able to protect the user with default settings and no extras.

If a user must change even one setting in order to be fully protected - then this means the security product sucks.

This also includes extra protection features that would require manual intervention - sandbox . This is all for advanced users and cannot be used by majority of real end users such as the office lady or average Jo.

 

Because they refuse or may be can't participate in the official tests - I suspect COMODO either don't want to or don't have the money to get in.

Instead , they prefer to be part of the "reputable" tests conducted by Different Internet Experience Ltd. (Matousec).

 

Thank you! I just worry that Comodo is so bad that it's can't participate in av-test. Now, I think I can trust Comodo Firewall