Av-Test April 2012 Test Results

sorry but they failed miserably & I like their product, have bought it for years but they have been in free fall for years & I guess this is rock bottom. If it was free maybe you could justify that but today not even sure of that. But don't take people's money & deliver results like this, sad really as they just can't say sorry we'll do better. Gets like politics they're put a spin on it to make it better. Hey maybe they will put ads out saying they detect 100% , oh yea they did that already...

 

with Eset, it is time for those, who made it sucessful years ago, then climbed into those large plush offices with nice salaries to match, to get their butts back into the drawing room to assist with the current drop of developers in getting Eset righted. You know who you are.

For crying out loud, dont let this happen Eset. The brand name doesnt deserve it.

Avira made the hard choice in the last week and made some changes in their upper level of management to fix what has been killing them for 2 years.

Now Eset must do the same.

 

In the wake of this ESET NOD32 debacle [per AV-Test.org], I just say thank God I did not renew my annual subscription to that AV when it expired this February. I noticed that, since version 2.7 [the best one I ever used], they have been going down on detection and/or cleaning.

I do feel some sympathy for those here who under any circumstances, will never abandon ESET no matter how bad it performs. That is "true love" or a true commitment to an AV.

And, I have to agree with you zfactor, whenever a thread is started at ESET forum, demanding an explanation of why ESET is doing poorly on detection/removal, gets locked in a heartbeat without any explanation. I think that this is a very unprofessional treatment to people who pay every year for such AV to get "protected".



Carlos

 

I will stand by Eset. I dont care what tests say. in the real world Eset protests my machines and my customers machines.
I have used sysrescue to clean infected machines and it works very well. When cleaning infected machines you should never rely on one tool and if possible you should do a reinstall since you can never fully trust a system that has been compromised.
The products that come top of the tests time and again have other issues.

example: kaspersky: uses alot of disc space,uses alot of cpu and ram,crashes quite alot, scans are mega slow, has alot of gimmicks. Dont get me wrong I like kaspersky as a company but they really need to get rid of the gimmicks and sort out the issues I have outlined.
bitdefender: uses alot of disc space, has alot of gimmicks,very slow scan time. can use alot of cpu.

I think you should try the products for yourself rather than just looking at tests.

btw does avtest provide the missed samples to the antivirus vendors so they can improve their detection and removal?

I think the old dont judge a book by its cover should be used here.

how many people thought vista was crap but never even tryed it?
There was nothing wrong with vista. all operating systems have issues to start with and the issues got fixed.

 

Article in PC Mag:
http://securitywatch.pcmag.com/security-software/298317-ahn-lab-and-eset-lose-av-test-certification

 

i tend to agree with lodore which is why i have not switched yet.....

i have in real world use yet to get infected with ess and im using v5 and v6 beta. i AGREE they NEED better cleaning but in real time it blocks everything i have seen from day to day..

 

trjam, you always seem to have the latest news from the inside! Care to elaborate a bit?

 

i have always liked avira but i cant buy boxed versions of it (anything boxed i get really cheap through distributors etc) and imo avira like a few others is a bit overpriced if you ask me..also stopped using it with all the issues that came about.. maybe its going to be changed now who knows..still going to stay with eset and avast and see what both do with their resources.. if the pace of eset continues i may find myself in the change out mood not sure yet

 

WSA really dissapointning

There is like 999 bad reviews>1 good review from PCMagazine

I excepted WSA perform better, there is no more excuses for WSA to perform bad

WSA revolucionary is pure ****

 

The AV-C and AV-Test results are lower than what our actual users would be seeing and we're working through it as we speak: https://www.wilderssecurity.com/showpost.php?p=2062146&postcount=93

You'll start seeing much better results as soon as we fix these issues, but in the meantime, we're being cautious to prevent our users from seeing issues.

However, rest assured that the product is performing perfectly well for actual users - only if you are constantly getting heavily infected would it perform less than perfect at the moment, and even then, the AV-Test scores this last round weren't that bad, all things considered, especially with 0 FPs and strong cleanup of threats - http://www.av-test.org/no_cache/en/tests/test-reports/?tx_avtestreports_pi1[report_no]=121361

 

Eset doesnt have a clue for the future and their anti-theft module is proof of it. Avira is at least showing signs of waking up.

 

+1

not comparable.. I heard Avira is going to change the whole interface and make something new and also gonna add Cloud technology.. good future is comin.

best regards

 

Well I see that Webroot's SecureAnywhere is and still doing very well! If you look there was 43 FP's in March out of 505,040 samples and in April 0 out of of the same samples so you do see progress and as PrevxHelp has said they will be tweaking there Logic in the cloud and they will do it for it does not affect the user of getting more FP's but less! And there always improving WSA as you can see in all the Change logs in the Prevx forums!

TH

 

Webroot doesn't seem to being very well in the April Av-Comparatives test results. http://chart.av-comparatives.org/chart2.php?f-from=4&f-to=4&f-year=2012&f-sort=0&f-zoom=2&submit.x=0&submit.y=0

 

Yes, we definitely didn't do well in that test. It's under investigation by us as we speak: https://www.wilderssecurity.com/showpost.php?p=2062146&postcount=93

 

What? If malware has been detected then you're able to remove it either by using separate tools or by reinstalling/restoring your OS. Without that detection you won't even know that you've been infected and need to take action. So detection is more vital than repair. I would agree that lacking in repair capabilities makes an antivirus incomplete as removal is an advertised component but it isn't correct that failing repair there's nowt gained by detection.

 

Agree.

Detection is and always be the #1.

 

Well, yes, if coupled with the ability to block what it detects.

 

GOOD JOB BULLGUARD

 

Maybe v6 will adress those cleaning issues? But who knows..

 

Good detection (Bitdefender engine, Novashield behaviour blocker), light footprint and cheap as chips (http://store.downloadcrew.com/p19668-bullguard_antivirus_12)

 

Now that's what I call a cheap av

 

Seems not, perhaps in future cleaning module updates:

 

I agree that Eset's results are not reassuring, particularly considering it is a paying AV and not the cheapest at that. But the first major task expected from an AV is to detect, block, deny access which in this context they are all synonyms. If a computer is already infected, detection becomes rather a conceptual proof that the AV sees the malware. To expect to clean might be an advantage, but even the best 'cleaners' cannot guarantee always a thorough job.

We all know that re installing or restoring a clean image is the only way to have a 100% clean system.

 

Does Bullguard auto-delete files like BItdefender does?


Edit: Just tested this. While it is a strong performer, it behaves just like Bitdefender. It will quarantine a file on it's own. When I go to quarantine to "restore" it, it instant gets quarantined again. Therefore, what good is "restore"? These bit defender engine programs really need to replace "restore" with "Restore and mark safe". Until then I won't use any of them with the exception of Roboscan, which doesn't have this behavior.