AV-C On-Demand Comparative Test

Excuse my ignorance friends but what does "BB" stand for?

Thanks,
Acadia

 

Behavior blocker.

 

Hello folks,

@Acadia: BB stands for Behavior Blocker.

See you later,

Aeolis

 

I am aware of that, but what I was trying to find out is whether a) ZoneAlarm (and any other product using KAV engine) actually benefits due to the cloud in terms of lower false positives and/or improved detection rates and b) Does Kaspersky rely a lot on the cloud, meaning that products not using the same cloud like ZA would have meaningful differences in detection rates (better or worse)? From the RAP test results, the answer seems to be somewhat mixed.

 

I thought that this time the test was supposed to include a removal/disinfection test as well. Was I misinformed?

 

I thought you would never ask. I also wondered, but did not ask.
Thanks, and keep up the good work.

Regards,
Jerry

 

AV-C false alarm test for February 2011: ~ Removed Direct PDF Link as per AV-Comparatives Request - See False Alarm Tests page for the actual PDF ~

Although avast! and ESET got high FPs but those severity of FPs are not severe right?Correct me if I am wrong.

 

Wow, McAfee got 0 false alarms and Trend Micro 290!

Avast isn't bad, but ESET has 2 yellow greens.

 

That's right.

 

Possible Artemis had a lunch break during the testing.

 

"I was surprised that Webroot's results didn't track more closely with Sophos, since Webroot licenses Sophos technology. AV-Comparatives.org's Peter Stelzhammer briefly explained that 'Webroot equals Sophos minus cloud.' Webroot plans to incorporate that cloud technology within the next 60 days."

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2383615,00.asp


.

 

Hi all,



False Positives detection by Anti-virus should not be taken lightly because it ONLY takes 1 [ just ONE, no 250, not 500, not even 1000 ] F.P. to render a whole network inoperable.

Anybody here remembers what a bad update # 5958 [by McAfee Enterprise] nearly a year ago caused to Windows XP computers worldwide?

http://www.zdnet.com/blog/bott/defective-mcafee-update-causes-worldwide-meltdown-of-xp-pcs/2003





Carlos

 

Of course we remember that FP.

But you should also remember that it is a huge differens in having an FP on a random software used by 100-1000 people, than on a Critical SYSTEM File that Every OS has wich in return affected millions of systems around the world.

 

Nice article.I won't recommend any McAfee products to anyone else anymore.What a shame to a world-leading internet security industry.I think Panda is better although it has high FP rates.

 

Agree.They should the lesson.Try not to make the same mistake anymore.

 

Funny how people dismiss FPs today when a couple of tests ago they bashed Avira for having many FPs.

Too bad our cloud based AI wasn't included in the product for this test. The scan results on the missed samples were... interesting.

 

Sarcastic?

 

Not anymore OK.... just sometimes

Something new?

 

When you've been screwed by a FP as I was with SAS a while ago, you pay more attention believe me.

 

I dont care about having failed Adv + for only 5 FP excess

FP´s is normal for any product, and someday you will suffer, though in the case of ESET just 1 time fault and has won 14 times back (more than other vendors ) in retrospective tests.

I wonder if any other vendor can presume that, or have won the record of VB100

As you can see, my trustfulness in ESET remains unaffected

 

Wow G-Data 99,8?
That's kinda a lot if we compare it to the other ones

 

It has 2 effective engines after all, that result is expected.

 

Maybe the argument has merit.....considering Avira has worked hard to control the FPs so that they don't show up a lot on tests such as this

But FPs are still a problem and will always be. I have not changed my stand one bit on this. However, the cloud services these days seem to have made things better as reputation based checking can alleviate some false detections.

 

Some of us, including me, are a long way from being computer geeks. A FP is not insignificant and requires some research and time to determine if it is really a FP.
Very many FPs will cause me to change to an AV with few/fewer FP.

I do not think that fewer FP translates into a poorer or unacceptable detection rate, and poorer security.

Regards,
Jerry

 

I will second that Jerry.