AV-TEST certificate Windows 8 Jan/Feb 2013

Windows Defender:

6 of 6 on Usability.

This shows me how poor detection can help inflate numbers in a different category.

A default 6 of 6 in the Usability category if you detect absolutely nothing.

Sarcasm here.

 

Avast! heavier than Bitdefender?! ZoneAlarm Free having not great protection with Kaspersky engine? Hmm. Also, don't see how COMODO could have such low protection with its HIPS.

 

Anybody who says Windows Defender detects nothing - please, get a spare machine, install Windows 8, update it and use it with default settings and default programs. Start to through malware at it via web or flash, react thoughtfully to all messages you get and let me know if you will be able to infect it. Additionally, you might want to learn more about Windows 8's new built-in defenses such as ELAM, Trusted Boot, system-wide Smart Screen Filter, literally thousands of improvements , etc. before publishing lame and incorrect statements to the public.

By the way if you manage to infect it with the scenario I gave you above, do let me know and I could send you a reward.

 

My post, if that is what you are referring to, was labeled as sarcasm so don't take it too seriously. Apparently, the machine used in this testing would have become infected. In this test, the protection of Windows Defender was one of the worst- 2 of 6 in the Protection category.

 

I was not replying directly to you

 

My (sarcastic) point was that if an antivirus does poorly in the Protection category, are they rewarded in the Usability category because of this?

If an av has low detection rates isn't it possible that they will also have a low number of false positives??

I suppose it could happen the other way around, that an av could have a low detection rate and high false positives.

But, which is more likely?

 

98.3%

AV-Comparatives - Real-World Protection Test - March 2013

Edit:
98.3%
=
Final/full results are not available yet - charts were still incomplete and not intended for public yet. Please come back in some days.

 

So I see avast free did better than bitdefender on av-comparatives, not compromised once!

 

Final/full results are not available yet - charts were still incomplete and not intended for public yet. Please come back in some days.

 

Looks like I spoke to soon lol. Thanks.

 

I don't understand why Avira didn't do better. I figured with the new Avira Protection Cloud it would place them more near the top.

 

Shiver Me Timbers!!!

 

Shame repair is gone, was the most interesting test AV-Test provided

Yup ignore the odd (maybe biased) scaling system. Look at the numbers/samples/percentages themselves as a base.

 

~~ snipped unnecessary comment ~~

We never ever said avast is perfect...but if you personally used avast you will know the new technologies and improvements that came and made it a great product.CIS is also a great app,no doubt,But as I have said this earlier there is no need to come and give personal testimonial because these tests are of no use to the end user because they dont reflect real life.Neither any of the testers,have any proof of what and how things were tested to show apart from random charts etc.But,yes a test is a test and you need to accept the fact that CIS did poorly here and which is a contradict to all the youtube and other videos/reviews and try to find what in CIS is lacking. [eg:FP's,better AV component in terms of 0-day]
Honestly, a user would click allow on all of those D+ alerts because they think it will do something good for there computer. That is the only reason they would download something.

If you look at the difference between versions of avast and CIS personally,then lets see:

Avast v4: was very good
avast v5: heuristics and some stuff.
avast v6: improved detection rate.
avast v7: cloud
avast v8:evo-gen/filerepmalware and more in house technologies to come.

CIS v3: too many alerts from HIPS.Poor AV.Features were only with cloud etc.
CIS v4: Nothing changed from what I saw.
CIS V5: Again nothing changed still a poor AV
CIS V6: Too many FP's without any fixing,sandbox/HIPS Bypasses,promises of things during the beta that never came and still a poor AV.Their forum becomes full with bully type mods and proud CIS fanboys who wont accept anything against CIS.

So we can clearly see who is steadily improving and who is not.

When will people learn that even if CIS has HIPS/BB/sandbox it can still be bypassed in a number of user dependent and sometimes the type of malware that will be in the future will be getting through these type of suites.Do you even read AV EULA's? No one is claiming a 100% protection anywhere.

Next time,why not tell melih to work,improve and release new stuff's and improve their AV rather than wasting his money on his stupid hair jell which I dont care about,instead of getting wild at defending things here

 

well, sometimes it's was even ahead of enterprise KAV engine. Just depending on the update cycles. You will see ZA detection back to normal with the just released build 504.

 

It's the same with eScan, it's about how the SDK is updated. Sometimes a major update to engine components takes some time to implement and test for compatibility with the application and hence the update is released later.

This doesn't really affect the protection in the real world, for all intents and purposes they can be considered roughly equivalent in terms of protection (or at least detection).

 

Avira never does very good on AV Test for some reason.

 

Yes, basically AV-Test continues doing biassed test that are not representative at all about the protection capabilities that the product has, and I'm not talking only about comodo.

"Protection against 0-day malware attacks, inclusive of web and e-mail threats (Real-World Testing)"
Let's call it real word testing with some features of the products disable. Sandbox, behaviour Blocker and HIPS disable.
http://www.av-test.org/en/test-procedures/test-modules/protection/

 

This is obvious.
The only 2 serious AV Test is AV-C & VB.

 

Remember, AV-Test evaluates the antivirus capability of security programs. Hence, why the other security functions of certain programs are not tested.

 

Why do they test Suites then? They should test only AVs.

 

I stand corrected. After reading a bit more on the AV-Test website, it appears that they do take into account all the features of the programs they test.

 

-http://news.softpedia.com/news/Bitdefender-Internet-Security-2013-Is-the-Best-Windows-8-Anti-Virus-AV-TEST-343453.shtml

 

It appears? xD yes, they are not even clear in the methodology. They cook how ever they want the results to achieve the results that they want.
I can assure you that they are not taking into account all the security layers of comodo and probably from other security products
In fact, they are testing "CIS premium" (with options disable)..., while they could have tested CAV (with the BB disable) but the purpose of the tests is directed by the companies who paid for it. So it's better if looks like some products are better than CIS than if they are better than CAV

I mean the whole test is a non sense.