av-comparatives news

The bulletin(article) talks about test number 10 , I believe so . In report 10 , retrospective test , Avira did worse that ESET achieving Advanced only
VBA32 was number one , NOD32 was number 2 , however VBA32 produced too much false positives , NOD32 had only 5 fp

In the last bulletin Avira does has a little bit more that NOD32 , but both Avira and NOD32 did excellent-> Advanced+

 

That's a fact and why didn't Eset use this latest one? So convenient

 

Re: Comparative review highlights the strength of NOD32 in corporate environment

Opening line is 'The folks at AV-Comparatives have done an interesting test.' and it links to them so I would suggest that AV-Comparatives have done the comparison - and this I guess is a ZDNet review of it.
Same sort of thing as this which HiTech_boy posted afterwards.
Many people find it far more credible when they can find things at more than one source especially if one of them is the product developer.

Cheers

 

Avira was excellent in both, On-Demand and Proactive test. It was just a small % worse than NOD32 in proactive one... Honestly a difference not worth mentioning...

 

no, its about the special test about the "Release rates & signature updates". It will answer why only 4 products are mentioned (http://www.av-comparatives.org/seiten/ergebnisse/Release_rates.pdf). P.S.: like i said, you guys should check the av-comparatives site more often to see also those additional tests [its up since long time]

 

Thank you ,IBK . I really didn't know about this special test "Release rates & signature updates" .

 

how many differences is between classic and premium versions of avira in therm of detection, spyware, adware etc?



thanks

 

in our tests none, because the used test-sets do not contain spyware/adware etc.

 

would you include them in the future?

 

The current detection rates against those samples added AFTER the 02-2006 test were much lower within those av:s I checked from publications 200602.pdf, 200608.pdf and report11.pdf by Av-Comparatives.org. With the several engined av:s excluded (plus Vba32), I got detection rates between about 52+...98+ % and even the rating order was quite different than the published test table 200602.pdf. AVG 7.1 was the biggest positive surprise in there, when it scored the 5:th place.

Best regards,
Firefighter!

 

In my opinion they should not be as it will divert the results.

 

Dear Mr. Norton Basher, if you think 10-15MB is bloat (http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16555137~mode=flat) then you must be smoking something.

Oh and btw.. LiveUpdate is far more reliable than some of the other update technologies like for NOD32 uses.

 

I highly doubt that. NOD32 failed me only once and even then it was a DNS problem where you don't have much to do. LiveUpdate kept failing on me repeatedly. Especially in early NAV versions it was awful. You had to make 5 reboots and run update 5 times to install all the update junk and usually something just failed in between or leave NAV crippled. Latest LU in NAV2006 is a bit better though i still prefer dedicated updaters written by AV companies itself than by some 3rd party updaters (like LiveUpdate).
And all i tried so far were much better than LU and they mostly still are.

 

but its still norton and made by symantec. and still uses that crappy live update.

you would have to pay me alot to ever get it on my pc lol.

 

What is wrong with the company Norton/Symantec

Can you explain some more detailed why it is "crappy"?

 

ok. i used to use norton made by symantec on my old dell pc for about 4 years. it was always crashing and had to reboot it like five times a day. so when i got my new pc i got a spysweeper reccoemended by a friend so I i installed it on my old pc and it found like 200 pieces of spyware adware etc. and i have also tested other av's on it. they have found at least 20 trojans. so i think you can understand why i dont like norton and symantec. I know maybe at the time people didnt really know about spyware but they should of protected against it anyway if they are ment to be a good secuirity company. a good secuirty company should be one step ahead of the virus/malware writers to be successful.
bu symantec dont care about its customer's because even if they dont try they still sell there products all the time. i can understand that the adverage home user uses it because they dont know any better and is reccomedned by e.g. pc world. but what i dont like is people in the field of ICT know use it and reccomend because they should know better. when ever i have any excuse to bash symantec I do. because i belive the original norton was a good product and peter norton cared about his customers and made tight codeing that didnt slow down pc's and great detection. but i also belive symantec ruined norton by making the detection rate lower introduced live update rubbish and making it bloated and hard the uninstall.

anyway about the rubbish live update. to get all the updates from live update you have to run it then reboot then run it again to finish the updates then nreboot then again for about five times to get more updates. also it seems to stop working like once a week so you have to uninstall live update then reintall it. now that is the worse designed system ever.

so on the new pc i installed f-secure and have been malware free for over two years. i know i am now a more aware and more safe surfer but the point is it wasnt even blocking the trojans. i am now once again thinking of switching because sure f-secure's detection rate is great but slows my system down. so kaspersky or antivir

please tell me what you think if you can be bothered to read it all ok?
lodore

 

I don't understand how you and others complain about Norton. I've been using the product regularly and it has never let by any Virus or Trojan (despite the fact it's not an Anti-Trojan software). I also checked with friends and relatives who use their product and none of them have anything negtive to report as far as detection (about resource usage yes). In additon the Antivirus reports all show detection levels of 96% and upwards! (100% for viruses in the wild).
Very strange

 

antivir has 99.something detection in trojan and so does kaspersky and it is partly a av's job to detect trojans because not everyone is going to use a separate anti trojan program

 

lodore,

Simply because an antimalware application that you have run flags a number of discrete files and tags them with some nominal identifier actually means fairly little. They could be residual flotsam connected to a successful defense, bascially benign cookies, and so on. This type of information does not necessarily bear any connection to a live malware infestation. If you had 20 live trojan applications on that machine, it would have likely been quite obvious without the aid of any AV/AT/AS application.

Live Update has be an historical weak link with Symantec. However, I do happen to have SAV installed on my work machine, and there have been no issues with LU in at least 2 years on that machine - perhaps they've finally wrung out the problems. That's just my own anecdotal observation.

While Norton/Symantec is not my personal choice, it is actually a very good option for an average user. It is one thing to make an alternate selection for whatever technical or aesthetic reason you choose, but if you are going to use technical arguments to criticize a product, please support them with objective technical facts or observations, not loosely defined statements involving bloat, lack of tight coding (whatever this means - have you ever coded a substantial program, even a personal use one, yourself?) and so on....

Blue

 

didnt you read my part about the pc didnt really work and need to reboot like 5 times a day for 4 years because of all that malware on it.

 

A couple of percentage points are irrelevant in chosing an Anti-Virus program
as has been stated here a number of times as well as by the ones conducting
the tests. Especially in our case, as I mentioned before, that Norton has a 100%
rating in finding and preventing viruses in the wild, which are the ones we have to concern ourselves with. In addition, concerning detection of polymorphic viruses, Norton is unsurpassed.

It is certainly recommended to use a good anti-trojan along with your anti-virus program as any security expert will tell you. Nevertheless, Norton has made
great strides in this area as well and is introducing trojan signatures at a massive rate. The trend today is to expect one's anti-virus to find all kinds of malware and even spyware and here also we find Norton jumping on the bandwagon.

I have full confidence in NAV which has never let me down and don't go along with this cultish type behavior of belittling their products.

 

Maby YOU really need to learn something here. If you use the same security software for 4 years (that will say, 2000 - 2004), then of course ur comp will get infected! Your surfing habbits and knowledge about using a computer that period must have extremely bad, and personally I wouldnt never blame Symantec/Norton for that.

Btw. Neither my friends or I, have never had problems with their liveupdate.

 

This ITW crap should be eliminated as it only makes users think there is 50 viruses that are ITW and are important. While in reality 90% of all stuff that infects PCs is so called ZOO malware (excluding mass spammed worms that people just click like they'll get milions of $$$).

 

I have had very good service from Norton security products and live update has always worked well. I have moved up from norton antivirus and now use Symantec corporate client security ver. 10, It really works sweet.

 

Hi BigC!

Till today i thought you was a KAV fan (again)