AV-Comparatives: Real-World Protection Test Feb-Mar 2019

amen to that, brother.

 

guest, AV tests must be meaningful AND economically fesible, both for the testing organization, and for the AV companies who pay for their product to be tested. A test lab's processes must be designed to do the job AT A PRICE that will be both profitable AND marketable.

It's easy for someone to describe pie-in-the-sky theories that cost money when they themselves don't have to put up the risk capital, attract & retain competent personnel, meet the payroll, & do the marketing.

The current tests are NOT "pointless". They provide useful information so that someone selecting an AV is not forced to do so blindly. Maybe the test info isn't good enough for you but you are not an average user. In fact, in other posts you often say that you don't even use an AV.

 

For commissioned test, i agree with you.
For any other kind of test, vendors shouldn't be involved in any sort. They shouldn't even be aware they are tested.

what is costly about divulging the age and name of the used samples to the public?

You have trials, it is what really matters, to see if an AV suits you, labs results means nothing if you can't even handle the said software...

Indeed, based on my past experience with them, i don't feel i need any.

 

pardon me, sir, but average joe doesn't select their av sw by reading av tests or reviews and opinions by reputable and trusted experts. instead, they google "best av" and read paid reviews from shady or phony sites like toptenreviews or they simply dl their av sw from the first link google brings up in search results. aamof, it's people like us security geeks that read those av tests.

 

I'm afraid that's true. But at least we can advise friends and relatives.

 

Why they participate in tests?
That's the reason =
https://www.bitdefender.com/business/awards.html
https://usa.kaspersky.com/top3
https://www.avast.com/en-us/awards-certifications
https://www.avira.com/en/company-awards
etc....

Note that each vendor selects [and advertise] from the test results what's the best for him..........

 

You have a rather low opinion of the "average joe." Perhaps you were thinking, instead, of joe sixpack.

If no one but folks like Wilders denizens were influenced by AV tests, the mass market AVs wouldn't spend money to be tested. Actually, the denizens of Wilders & other security forums are a miniscule percentage of the AV buying public. AV companies would be penny-wise and dollar-foolish to spend much time or money on the likes of us. No, they are paying money to be tested because reputation is good for business. Catering to us isn't particularly the best way to spend their time & money -- after all, many of us here at Wilders love the AV freebies, or else have moved away from AVs altogether, in favor of such as OSArmor, SpyShelter, & other schtuff. If any AVs CFO found they were spending money on tests that no one but Wilders folks read, those tests would cease post haste.

As for "average joes" (& average janes), I am one of those & so are my friends. They mostly seek advice about AVs from their friends & associates -- like you & guest & Joxx -- or the ITs in the offices where they work, or their computer salesman, or their computer repairman, and so forth. They also read advertisements where Norton, McAffe, et alia cite their great results in the various tests. Directly or indirectly, many buying decisions are influenced by objective test results.

I hesitate to say this, but some of us also seek AV buying advice from our grandchildren & the kid next door. The new generation in America is growing up VERY computer-adept, & that includes their awareness of: (1) the need for effective security, & (2) the existence of tests to help them determine that effectiveness. This is true in America & (IMO) is equally or more true for nations in Europe & Asia.

The kids I know have to take computer classes in school -- those classes are now as much a part of the mandated curriculum as math and language. Their teachers are no more taken in by those phony review sites than we are, & they teach that to their students. Today's young "average joe" is waaaay more computer adept than my generation's "average joe."

Those who decry objective testing are on the borderline of purveying ignorance. In effect they are saying something like: -- "People won't buy books, and some books are trashy, so why print them?"

 

sir, believe me, most people don't even have a clue about computer security and online safe practices. they just use the bundled av and security sw that come with their computer/smart phone. they don't bother to change/tweak anything default on their machines as long as things are going ok for them. kids get sex education at school too but that doesn't automatically make them practice safe sex. aamof, sexually transmitted diseases are on the rise in the states. so getting computer classes at school doesn't really mean that much.

 

FWIW most people I know select the AV on the basis of recommendations from friends and after reading some articles on sites like PC Mag/PC World (and local magazines). Since most of those do take into account AV-C and AV-Test if nothing else, I would say the test results do matter, but not as much as we think.

 

"Most people" you say? Has someone taken a poll or is your basis merely hearsayl? If your statement is mainly based on what you have heard or read or experienced then perhaps you are basing your conclusions on a biased sample.

Bear in mind -- the news media mainly reports screw-ups & bad news. They seldom if ever report about people who DO use their heads, or who do NOT screw up. Computer repairmen & ITs primarily deal with fouled-up people bringing them senselessly infected or otherwise fouled-up computers. Basing conclusions on their experience or the news media is rather like primarily basing public health data on samples taken exclusively within hospitals.

Just as the mass market learned how to safely drive cars after the Model T was introduced, this generation has progressively learned to be aware of hacks, malware threats, and how to practice safe computing. They do not always follow the safe computing practices that they know about. That doesn't mean they are clueless. Rather, it often means they got reckless, &/or careless, &/or arrogant, &/or have yielded to an over-active endocrine system.

Inferring that AV tests are useless because "most people" are ignorant or clueless can well be construed as a form of elitism. It's like saying, "People are too clueless to use AV test data, so let's make sure they stay that way." Good grief!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

@Firecat, @guest, @anon -- well-said, thoughtful comments. I often learn from your posts. Thanks!

 

@bellgamin Sadly, it has been my experience that a lot of people don't have a clue. They use whatever antivirus came preinstalled or was sold with their computer and never look for an alternative. They also never backup their computer, with the only exception being that very occasionally, they may move some of their pictures and videos to an external hard drive.

I've had several computers brought to me, on which the antivirus was even't actually running and protecting their computer. But the customer did not realise that. It was also quite common in the past, to see people running a version of AVG which was a few years old, since old versions of it, never checked for program updates. On several occasions, I've had customers ask me to move some of ther photos to an external drive, as they believed it would speed up their computer. They didn't realise that it wouldn't speed up their systems and they still had plenty of free disk space.

Is this true of most people? I don't know. But, it is true for a lot of people.

 

Yes, this is true. However, most people I know now expect that their computer will work towards keeping their software updated. As far as I know, recent versions of Avast/AVG do push new versions to all users after certain cutoff date, and with BullGuard, it auto-upgrades to the new release without user intervention.

I would say AV vendors need to look towards making the use of their products seamless and worry-free as is possible. I had a number of computers automatically upgrade from BullGuard 18.x to 19.x without a peep or even anyone noticing. That's how it should be.

 

Yes, I believe that is the case now. This was prior to AVAST/AVG merging.

 

Roger, I believe all you have written. The only issue I have is where you wrote, "... a lot of people."

Based on what you have written, here & in other posts, may I assume that you are a computer professional of some sort? If so, just as a pediatric doctor is most usually visited by parents who want care for their sick kids, I would imagine that you are most often visited by computer owners who want care for their sick computers. My point is, folks who do NOT have sick computers are less likely to visit computer professionals. Therefore, computer professionals do not usually have a stratified/balanced sample of computer users.

QUESTION: Is the so-called clueless group composed of (a) some users, or (b) a lot of users, or (c) most users? The answer to that question is not central to the point that I have been trying to make. I began my overly-long posts in response to a few posts saying, in so many words, that AV tests are useless/gamed/rigged/imperfect/etc.

In response to those posts, I tried to make the point that, even if the present tests are not perfect, they do at least provide some objective basis for buyers of AVs to make their choices founded on something other than merely ads, hearsay or coin flips.

In response to that point, some posters offered elitist-type comments along the lines that "most folks are clueless so why bother with them?" (Doesn't anyone realize how "Archie Bunker" that sort of argument sounds?)

When it comes to matters of dealing with technology, IMO people fall into one or the other of 3 categories: (1) taught, (2) untaught, (3) poorly or wrongly taught. To help people in categories (2) & (3), there needs to be a "better way" to point them to. IMO, AV tests are at least part of a better way for *average janes & joes* to make informed security choices.

 

@bellgamin I work as computer tech, every now and then - due to heatlh issues. My opinion is based not just on customers, but also for example, people I've worked with.

With regards to AV tests, I think they are somewhat flawed as they don't represent a real world usage scenario. But I don't think they are useless and can be used as guide when choosing an antivirus. I never take the results too seriously.

 

You do not need to take them seriously. Nor do guest, Firecat, imdb, anon, stapp, & other security virtuosos. But us average joes get useful guidance from those tests. It's pretty good guidance, after all -- it can lead us to the purchase of AVs such as ESET, Kaspersky, & Bit Defender -- not too shabby AVs, wot?

 

I find performance / impact tests more relevant. Except for zero-days, most AVs can give you fairly good protection. Perhaps some are better than others but at the end of the day, like @roger_m has posted many times, it's actually not that easy to get an infected machine. Unfortunately, common sense isn't really all that common though.

Should my machines become infected, that's what Macrium Reflect (+ others) are for.

 

with all due respect, sir, given that you're a registered member of wilders, a security forum and that you keep up with security sw and av tests, i don't think you can be considered as "average joe". so it's not people like you we're talking about here.

 

I also take more interest in the performance tests. The results of the performance tests, often don't match up to my own experience, but are still interesting to look at.

Yes, common sense is not that common. But I'm sure that the average user believes that just installing an antivirus, is all they need to do to be protected. Antivirus vendors contribute to this, when they say how wonderful their products are at protecting you against the latest threats. They do this without any mention of safe compuing practices, which by themselves, go along way to keeping you safe. It makes for good marketing, but contributes to users getting infected.

 

I also participate in a backgammon forum but I still do not play very well. (sigh)

 

i'm not sure that's the right analogy, sir, but if you say you're an "average joe" with an active account dating back to 2002 with over 6000 posts as a very frequent poster on a security forum , i'm not going to argue over that. have a good day, sir, over and out.

 

i agree with that, any person be a regular member of a security forum debating in threads can't be considered as Average Joe.
Average Joe is, in common understanding, someone that have basic skills in a field and aren't determined to improve the said skills.

I know how to drive a motorbike, doesn't mean i can race with it = i'm an average Joe.
Now, if i start studying optimal trajectories, best moment for gear changes, tuning my machine, etc... = i'm no more Average Joe, i'm not an expert/professional either but i'm definitely more than Average Joe.

 

Yeah, no. The "Average Joe" would be an average person at random. You're talking about an "Average computer security enthusiast" or an "average motocycle rider".

The "average joe" thinks the 3 month trial of McAfee is still protecting his computer 7 years later, has 6 toolbars on his browser, and responds to Nigerian Price email scams.

I sell internet B2C for a living. In peoples' homes. The "average joe" is a *** ****** moron when it comes to antivirus, anti-malware, firewalls, etc.

 

That's a very good way of putting it.

 

exactly what i said.