The least false positives

Which AV has had the least false positives, being both free or paid.

 

I know the av which has least false positives and most people don't like it ---------Norton.

 

I don't have a clue, and wonder where such information is gleaned.
Maybe such test organizations such as AV Comparatives has such data. I think that is a factor in the Proactive tests.

Jerry

 

KAV doesnt give so many FPs.

 

Hi,folks: good question. I would equate the quality of AV to the optimal balance of these two: rate of virus detection and frequency of F.P. AV w/ the least F.P. may not be effective at all, but by the same token, no risk no gain, AV w/ aggresive approach tends to produce more F.P. So what you say?

 

Well to answer your Q here, I always thought that NOD32 had the least false positives and even less than KAV.

 

I would have to disagree with that statement. Of course, I have no actual proof but it seem that the very nature of NOD32 versus KAV; heuristic versus signatures, would allow KAV to have fewer FPs. The more frequently signatures are updated the more frequently mistakes can be corrected. NOD on the other hand does not update it's engine as often as KAV does it's signatures and thus has fewer opportunities for correction. Of course this is just speculation.

Nate

 

Check the av comparatives for may 2006 and one will find that norton was the only av not to have any false positives. http://www.av-comparatives.org/seiten/ergebnisse_2006_05.php

 

Quite the contrary, ThreatSense enables NOD32 to minimize the number of false positives. In most cases it's that tools for remote administration are flagged as NewHeur_PE by advanced heuristics, but actually I wouldn't call it a false positive as these tools are detected as Potentially dangerous applications due to the fact that they can be exploited for malicious purposes. Based on my observation I'd say that on average we receive one such file per week.

 

Well there you go. If worse comes to worse ask the people that actually know what the hell they're talking about. Because I apparentlly don't.

 

i agree with this person

norton has the least false positives in my opinion, but i dont agree with people not liking it, well ... hating all versions 'up to' but not including 2007.

i didnt think norton had it in them to create such good software in their 2007 product line.

 

NOD32 gives few FPs.

 

nod32 & Norton...

 

Norton, Pc-Cillin and Sophos av are known to give minimum FPs.


tD

 

well, yes! Norton gives also few FPs. Their heuristic engine is not so great as to give many FPs.

 

The last one was known for this until someone had this glorious idea to flag almost every runtime packed file as "Mal/Packer".

 

erm ...

but isnt their detection about 99% ? with hardly, 'if any' false positives?

 

I don't know if that is even measurable. If some av flags add-/spywares, hacktools, keyloggers or other riskware, there are too many opinions if they are infections or not!

At first, someone has to specify what is a FP at all.

Best regards,
Firefighter!

 

See why I don't have a clue?

Jerry

 

well, they have many defs

 

You can find the answer at http://www.av-comparatives.org. You should read the 'reports' And the answer is... Norton!

 

Pykko said that their heuristic detection isn't that strong, which means that less files are likely to be flagged as malware. 99% is about their definition based detection anyways. Look at the retrospective results

Most corporate avs I know of have minimal fp's based on the fact that they don't max out the heuristic engine since if a fp was found, then all hell would break loose and I would not want to be an administrator of that network.

Alphalutra1

 

yep as i said,

norton 0 false positives
avg 3 false positives
avira 25 false positives

 

Norton has the least false positives as far as I know. Actually I've been using Norton for years now and can't recall even one.

This, along with their top detection rates (99%) makes it one of the top choices
in today's market.

I don't know why the groupies of Kaspersky and Nod32 look for every opportunity to degrade this top of the line product.

 

cos we have used old versions and have not been happy with em.
i used to use norton and the live update failed almost once every week and had to uninstall the liveupdate and reinstall it and it was such and pain and back then this was 2003 version it only updated once a week what a joke IMO and had to keep running intill all the updates come and reboot in the middle just like windows update. i havent tryed it since 2003 and dont intend trying it again. im about to install nod32 in the next few days if my dad lets me...

just my opinion and my experience