AV-Test.org: July / August 2013 - Windows 7

Greetings,

a new AV-Test.org report for home user protection under Windows 7 for the months of July and August 2013 is online:

http://www.av-test.org/en/tests/home-user/windows-7/julaug-2013/

Corporate protection as well:

http://www.av-test.org/en/tests/corporate-user/windows-7/julaug-2013/

Best Regards

 

Thanks! Great result for Avast And will just get better since they improved more over the backend this month

I still dont understand how there can be 100% detection and 6/6 for a product's AV?? Impossible...

 

WOW MSE doing rely bad....
its pretty sad Microsoft could make of it a decent antivirus
but it could be argued that what's the point of antivirus if NSA has backdoors
and "legal" spyware

 

Avast did do great, but it is concerning that their performance score keeps getting worse each test.

Comodos looking more and more impressive.

 

I tell you, the performance bit in the tests by AV-Test is the bit I never understand.

 

NIS did very well also..

 

What happened to Comodo?

 

this is my experience as well. after a break of over 2 years, recently i tried avast again. what a difference, my computer was real slow at times. no go...

 

comodo is doing great so does the usual top 3

forticlient not so great, but still sufficient, hopefully they will get better

 

COMODO drastically improved in false positives.
My second pet Avast as usually has almost zero FP.

 

where in the world do they come up with the performance rating... some of those scores are laughable. im sorry but some of the top rated performance ones are no where near that light.. what do they actually base that score on i would like to know.

 

some info here:
http://www.av-test.org/en/test-procedures/test-modules/performance/

 

Comodo impressive result

 

I'm sure if avast would get the 100% you would have not said that...

Anyway, really happy to see FPs going down for Comodo.

 

Not liking the "detection" part of the test where most decent AVs manage to detect 100% of old azz samples.

 

Same here, is that supposed to be higher is better or lower is better?

 

Thanks for the share!

 

You don't like the fact that the test differentiates between zero-day and known malware, so that you can get a picture where each product is good and bad at? It is comprehensible that almost every product gets a 100% at the "detection" part and that the division occurs at the real-world testing segmet. Yet wouldn't you like to know if a product couldn't even catch the stuff that's already a week old?

 

I didn't mean to sound like a troll, but it would be better if it wasn't so black and white. We already have VB100s for that.

PS. Looks like Kaspersky's dropped points.

 

Zero performance impact for norton.

 

These little sidenotes are the really interesting stuff. It gives you pause. You ask yourself how detection got worse with the new version, despite the new features. Yet you don't see if it was the 2013 or 2014 version that failed. The test only says that both were tested. The new Trusted Applications Mode is disabled at default settings, but the new ZETA Shield technology should have been active. So stuff gets through in spite of it. Trusted applications mode probably would have stopped it.

 

Performance:
"in s" (Industry average: 4) = lower is better
"Performance Score" (0/6) = higher is better

 

Would like to know that as well.

BullGuard

 

Just few post above.......
=
#12:
https://www.wilderssecurity.com/showpost.php?p=2281099&postcount=12

 

Well done Panda. What happened to Zonealarm?