AV-Comparatives Whole Product Dynamic Tests updated

Does anyone know if Avast1 was tested on default settings? I only ask because I know Avira like to be tested at max settings and I just wonderd if that's also the case with Avast!?

 

All products are tested with default settings in the Real-World Protection Tests.

 

Thanks for the Clarafication.

 

Hmmm....ESET, Avast, AVG, Avira, and Panda really dropped in the August test

 

Bitdefender performs very well for protection. No doubt strong protection but buggy.
BIS 2012 was nightmare. They knew issues but cannot address issues? I don't know.

Many reviewers said Bitdefender is light footprint security software but
frankly I cannot agree with them. If Bitdefender is light footprint security software
Webroot, Panda, Norton and ESET are Super light footprint security software.

MBAM(free/on-demand scanner) is really good tool as a second opinion.

 

Also include proactive detection. It says user dependent but in reality it's automatic and user doesn't really have much choice since sandboxing is automatic, backed up with on the fly analysis...

 

I hated BitDefender 2012 but love BitDefender 2013.

There is a big difference between the two versions.

 

Bitdefender and F-Secure: 100%.

Kaspersky: Only 99.4%? (Even, Trend Micro did better).

 

Well facts are facts. You go by whats is green. And if you do Avast only scored 93%.

 

Sorry but for me the automatic sandbox always put unknown file in the autosandbox and after analysis it give me 2 choice : continue execution or close. So for me it is really user dependent like comodo.
The option continue execution doesn't seem to put the file in the autosandbox so how does it protect the system then?

 

Yes, that's why it is yellow. If after the automatic sandbox the verdict is that it is malicious and blocks it, it is considered as blocked (green).

P.S.: Bitdefender was v2013 in August. And all are on default settings in WPDT.

 

You're going into testing methodology finesse. I'm looking at it from end user perspective and i don't count that as user dependent. That would be if you'd decide if you want to perform Sandbox analysis in the first place or not. Here, user doesn't have such control by default. It's always automatically sandboxed, analyzed and then executed if no conclusion is made. Take it as analysis in virtualized environment. Do you count NOD32's virtual machine heuristic analysis as user dependent? No. Do you count Norman Sandbox analysis as user dependent? No. avast! just works slightly different but in essence, it's the same thing.

avast! gives you that choice to run the file once it has already analyzed the file inside sandbox, not before that. If AV-C counts every sandbox as user dependent detection, then the test is severely flawed because avast! just doesn't work like that.

I'd have to test as well but as far as i know (not on my system atm), whatever you click after analysis, the file will already be excluded if not found malicious at first.
Continue executing just runs it again (non Sandboxed), Close, closes it for now but gives you option to run the file later without repeated analysis. So in the end, whatever you click, end result is basically the same. So i don't know how can you ppl call it user dependent when it clearly isn't.

First incarnation of Auto Sandbox, yes, maybe. Current, not by far...

 

Thanks for clarification i have to admit that you're right..

 

Stop looking at this with geek eyes like us. To the average Joe home user this chart basically says that Avast has a poor detection rate. To us it's different. Show this chart to any average Joe and see what they think. Every time a new test comes out and someone's favorite product scores poorly they get defensive. Reminds me of Melih.

 

I think IBK already addressed this issue in the past. He was reporting that test protocol is performed according and in agreement with AVAST (please correct me if I am wrong). So, probably better to ask directly to AVAST staff about it.

 

Well, think whatever you want, 99,1% is how much protection i get and that is all it matters.

 

I wonder if the threat categories have been set to max for Avira ?

By default that's not the case for the security suite.

It makes sense to select all of them, except perhaps 'games'. I never understood the default selection.

 

I know you represent Avast so of course your biased. Avast is still the best free av on the market in my opinion. But anytime you leave the decision making up to the user it can be a very dangerous situation. There is nothing to stop the average user from clicking ignore or run rather then block. Just like MSE gives you the option to remove or ignore. Thats why products such as Norton, Kaspersky or BitDefender are great. They automatically remove threats with no user intervention. Some times it can be a hassle cause it may quarantine good programs but for the most part this is far and few between.

 

I don't represent anything and i'm not biased. Why the hell would i be?

YOU DON'T MAKE ANY DECISIONS (for the millionth time). When file is executed it gets auto sandboxed automatically without user intervention. File gets analyzed in it and then automatically excluded if found safe. You don't have any control over this, only control that you have is if you want to run it right after analysis or sometime later. Which is the same thing as it doesn't change anything in the end. Now how can that be called user dependent?

 

The Avast Free Sandbox is set to "auto" by default. It will analyze files in the cloud. Once it is done you have 2 options from the drop down menu. Open in sandbox (recommended) or open normally. That leaves the decision up to the user. Just like CIS and D+. As I already said Avast is the best free av out there. I will always recommend it to people who want a free av. According to the AV-C chart Avast scored 93%. Plain and simple. I am not arguing so there is no reason to shout.

http://www.winhelp.us/index.php/gen...antivirus-additional-protections#.UFukvI1lSPQ

 

This is simple: Usability. Users want to see less Dialogs asking you what to do.
e.g. Avast FileRep or AutoSandbox

Once finished the processes inside Sandbox:
[Continue execution] = Run outside in the real system = infected
[Close] = Close window

Its up to the user.

 

That is exactly why Comodo will never be a house hold name. Too many annoying pop ups. The average Joe doesn't want to be bothered with there security. They just need it to work.

 

Oh for god sake, please use the program first and then talk about things you don't understand/know. You don't get any option where you want to run the file, if it's suspicious, it will always auto execute inside Auto Sandbox. User DOESN'T select anything in any dropdown menu.

Only thing where user still has control is FileRep warning and even there Abort download is the default option and since warning makes it pretty clear, most users will select Abort anyway. For Auto Sandbox you have NO control. Files will always run in it if found suspicious.

 

Well done BitDefender, what happened to Panda Cloud AV? Hm ...

 

if you're right, then AVC is wrong, because in their test result everyone can see the big yellow bar which states "user dependent".