Av-Test April 2012 Test Results

I am as shocked by ESET's repair results as I am with your comment.

I agree that the repair RESULTS SUCK big time! But saying that the product suck because of that is very wrong.

ESET does never perform very well in AV-tests testing that's something I have learned through the years, that's how it is!

ALSO I am pretty sure that ESET themselfs are shocked that they did not get certified, was is for the first time ever,I am not sure? This trend of the repair results getting worse and worse in the tests made by AV-Test is really annoying for us the users. But I am sure that ESET takes this very seriously this time due to the failing certification.

Personally I am not worried of getting infected when using ESET at all.
Their HTTP scanner is a piece of art in my eyes it's VERY effective at what it does to say the least.

Fanboy or not ESET is not the only company I respect, but they make the product that I like the most without a doubt. And I hope they don't change too much in V6 except for one urgent improvement......

 

have to admit very dissapointed in eset in this test...will not remove it just yet though..

 

AVG is clearly winning the battle as far as Free AV's are concerned.......with it scoring 1.5pts more repairs and 1pt on protection over Avast.

BD and KIS have done better than Norton is few results recently and with people on BD 2013 going gaga over how light it is the crown is slipping....both from norton and Avast.

For Eset i am shocked coz its new beta is so light on resources and i wanted to use it till the license expires...

God knows how it managed to score so low?

 

I ditched BD years ago due to its incompatibility with MBAM and other applications I used at the time. I have to admit that it may just be the most effective now, but I do not intend to go back to it.

The one that disappoints me most is Avast. It has always been my "go to" AV when I did not know what I wanted next. However, it has about gone by the wayside it seems.
Avira has really gone down to the unsat rating in my opinion.

Jerry

 

I personally find eset preventions equally or even better to norton, and that's more important than repair.

I only wish kaspersky was as light as eset.
Also, avg has avg slowdown=4? Really? No way. But it is really very good in prevention.

Finally, bitdefender, ok, this and the next year will be among the best in terms of protection, but in usability sucks.

 

Good or bad result? I never taken care of that when is about Av-Test :->
Long time ago I've lowered the trusting of this organization to the "Low restricted" group, not by the results, but because my trusting is not enough in the very simple methodology

 

When I have used AVG, I have never found it heavy.

 

I can't tell that it is "heavy" but it uses more cpu (identity protection process actually) than eset and avast. Also it has big increase in boot time.
Overall it's light, as much as the average free av is, but the "4" seems very low to me.

Anyway, well done by avg, they have good generic signatures, but especially for ID protection.

 

I agree, AVG Free or Panda Cloud Free are better alternatives

 

I did a test today with about 20 malware samples, eset, norton, avg participated and olny avg managed to keep completely clean the system.
Eset and norton left a running process and a module loaded.
It's strange, but is sonar activiry reduced in 2012? In 2011 sonar used to detect and clean any malware process.
Maybe they had a lot of fps, I don't know, but I think that norton has lost it's power, when bitdefender/kaspersky and probably f-secure lead the way.

 

If you look at this page and scroll down to Eset. They have steadily gotten worse at repair since 4.2. It appears that installing 4.2 may be the best choice for now, as i am going to do. Hopefully version 6 puts back in whatever 4.2 had at repairing.

 

I have a problem with AV-Test results.

I accept their results as presented, but doubt they represent real-world results. My concerns:

Lack of transparency as to methodology. They state they compare AV products with their defaults enabled.
This may be OK when comparing one security suite against another. But not when comparing a standalone AV against a full-blown security suite. Obviously this confers an advantage to the all-in-one suite! For all I know, AV-Test is testing the free standalones with no additional security layers installed.

I don't know any expert using, for example, avast-free or MSE, who relies on them alone for security. We use additional layers of security (various hardware or software firewalls, MBAM Pro, programs with HIPS, sandboxed programs, whatever). A standalone AV (free or paid) will seldom fare favorably against a suite.

I happen to choose to roll my own security suite, choosing the best components from a variety of vendors, that works best for me. Obviously my home-rolled suite will never be tested by AV-Test or by av-comparatives.

For those that want the convenience of a paid security suite, AV-Test is a good resource for comparing results.

For those that wish to use stanadalone AVs, and roll their own suite, I would look elsewhere.

 

Losing faith in Webroot.

The next test results WILL be mid-2012.

If they aren't a top performer then I will have to drop my endorsement for them.

 

Have you been infected using WSA or has it let you down in any way?

 

I totally agree with u...
For me prevention is better than repair. I mean how many of you use your only AV to scan your pc when u r infected
I bet we all will use Malwarebytes, more than one Rescue Disks and probably format or restore saved partition image!!

That's what i wanted to say!!!
I think you can blame your AV when some virus got inside your PC without letting you know and your AV doesn't popup!!
Talking about some TOP SPOT AVs, when i was infected even BD(6/6 in repair ) was not able to cure my pc!!! and I am talking about Feb-2012.

 

To answer your question though Joe, no it hasn't Webroot's been great to me, but just because your user base says one thing doesn't make the tests invalid or unreliable.

You were so confident you guys would be at the top. Please don't change the story and settle for "but look our customers are happy". That's not good enough of evaluation for AVs.

 

No test is invalid, but they're just one data point. Our goal is to score 100% on every test but I couldn't understand why someone would want to switch away from a product that has served them well just because of a less-than-perfect result from some test. If you really feel vulnerable, you can always add another layer if absolutely needed.

 

I'm not switching away. I have two licenses active with lots of time on it and I have like 4 more licenses in storage.

I'm just afraid to keep recommending Webroot to people since you guys are consistently getting MIXED reviews.

 

Isn't it more likely that the malware has become harder to remove and repair rather than that ESETs engine has become worse?

 

Prevention is always better than the cure regarding all viruses, even biological, because more often than not there is no cure.

 

I seem to be only one who disagree with some above comments. No doubt your AV should prevent you in 1st place, but this doesn't mean that you ignore REPAIR score.

I posted another post " Interesting conversation with a Hacker" where It is clearly mentioned that hackers work on FUD. If AV detects it, that explout it left and new ones are designed.


Hence, a good probability is that your AV would never catch many things. In future, repair would be needed and it it thus important.

Also, it is very common thing that you run some things thinking as FP since on most forums, the authors clearly say that " AV would detect keyloggers as Trojans but they are not, so ignore them". Poor users do that. Later when infected , Repair is important

 

i would like to add my views on some arguments here.....to defend poor results.

For a pc, prevention canbe done by not only detection of a threat, but by blocking it.

If a av detects a threat, but can't cure it....how's that prevention? Thats just a advertisement for me.

Also, if u as a vendor participate in a test....u can't mask the shortcoming by saying our users are happy...whats the point?

 

Of course the re-mediation of a system is important but it depends largely on how deep the infection has spread. Do you tamper with critical system processes in order to repair/remove an infection taking into account the risks of an unsuccessful operation?

Specific removal utilities that are harsh in dealing with detected threats often delete critical system files and processes rendering the infected machine useless whereby only a clean install of the OS removes all traces of virus activity.

That isn't to say that vendors shouldn't try implement various algorithms for cleaning and repair. It depends on the risks involved and whether or not some acceptable upper threshold/limit of risk is imposed. I.e. if we decide to clean process "x" what are the risks involved and how can we minimize adverse effects? etc.

 

I totally agree. If it cant repair, then there is no need to detect. They go hand in hand. If you can create a product to work inside the Microsoft enviroment then you should have the simple intelligence to know how to repair in that same enviroment.

 

Some points regarding Eset of which I have a license:

1. Where is a representative from Eset to explain these poor results
and give confidence that malware repair will improve in the future?

2. Why should I pay for an AV which fails certification when there are
free AVs which perform well? You do realize the world economy is still very difficult, don't you?

3. Spend time fixing your core components instead of coming out with new versions that don't address entrenched flaws.