AV Comparatives - August 2007 report

Re: AV Comparatives is Almost Due

tuareg: 62,5%
insane: 100%
the rest unchanged.

 

Re: AV Comparatives is Almost Due

gdata 2007 was certainly an improvement on 2006, alot quicker but still slow compared to what i use, but certainly not bad for a multi engine av.

based on detection rates alone, i made a good choice for another av (mainly for the pc), it was always between nod32 and bitdefender and they both did well, i chose bitdefender mainly for price and the fact i can use it on my laptop too, as a rollbackrx snapshot

not quite sure whats going on with drweb of late, but only time will tell i suppose.

i thought mcafee was a nice improvement, but the 'best result' for me was norton.

since 2007, norton have really grabbed the bull by the horns for tackling malware, and improved their software aswell, it would be hard for anyone to pass on norton.

other than that, all is fair in love and war.

 

Re: AV Comparatives is Almost Due

Good fair unbiased assessment. I keep an eye out on Dr. Web also.

 

Re: AV Comparatives is Almost Due

norton just have to make it so it uninstalls more cleanly now then it wont be to bad if its preinstalled by oems like dell.
and it will be better for anyone using it.
lodore

 

Re: AV Comparatives is Almost Due

It would help somewhat if they added more of the missed samples.

 

Re: AV Comparatives is Almost Due

Isn't that the truth?.....since 2002 on Dells with me. But I guess they are not going to pre-install so much so they say.

 

Re: AV Comparatives is Almost Due

yep, that bit is obvious.

but id like to see them implement some suggestions too, listen a bit more to customers instead of having 'just their own ideas and schedules'

and hopefully to take constructive criticism, but take it in a positive note and work on it.

any 90% av is fine, but if they just added the missed samples, it could be soooo much better.

its strange and confusing at best.

 

Re: AV Comparatives is Almost Due

Look at the link in my post !
It was not about av-comparatives !

http://www.hwupgrade.it/forum/showthread.php?t=1541875

KIS is no.1.

 

Re: AV Comparatives is Almost Due

ok, but bitdefender is last, and this simply just doesnt make sense.

 

Re: AV Comparatives is Almost Due

What kind of test is this. NOD 44% and Avira 33% come on

 

Re: AV Comparatives is Almost Due

It isn't about detection rates. It's about self-protection (registry keys, termination attempts, process manipulation, driver unloading, injection of code, etc)

 

Re: AV Comparatives is Almost Due

I'm not sure about the validity of the tests, but its not testing detection, but the self-defense mechanism of the AVs.

 

Re: AV Comparatives is Almost Due

Thanks. Not much of a difference, but still better than nothing.

 

I'm still not convinced that Norton is up to the level of Kaspersky. Especially in trojan detection and new threats. But we'll see how future reports go.

 

... Dont be then

 

in some ways in happy for symantec detection rates since yahoo mail is scanned by symantec.
then of course scanned by kaspersky by mail av on this pc.
so double scanning is good.
you never know one day i might get an infected email
lodore

 

What's the name of that battery that's sold at Sear's?

 

Well I don't treat AV Comparatives like it is Gospel. Has Norton improved? I think it has. I'm glad, because so many use it. But from what I've seen, I still have to see more to believe they have passed Kaspersky. Also, I have a thing about avoiding the most popular scanner due to targeting of it.

 

Re: AV Comparatives is Almost Due

Any AV vendor that does not update its signature files for known malware does not sound like they are on the ball to me, so you are making a distinction without a difference.

Be a Norton basher. By the way, there are several write ups on how SONAR stopped a widespread and damaging worm that most other AV's missed. Its way to easy to cite features from the sales pitch and announce "x" is better than "y". Perhaps you should append "IMO" because that is all you have.

Some of your favorites have serious negative problems: Bitdefender repeatedly tests as slowing down systems, Avira has a problem with false positives, there are tons of posts around here on how difficult KAV is to live with and Nod32 has its quirky interface, and was slower than Symantec to update their signatures for missed samples.

I do like Nod32, but save me from your other 3 favorites. I tried all of them and could not stand any.

 

I might just give in and try NIS 2008 for a while. With other AVs, I spend too much time trying to find the right AV and firewall combination. Still haven't found any stand-alone software firewalls for Vista that I like. I don't want to spend that much time on security. And there's no denying NIS did well in this test and others, even if beating Kaspersky by a very small margin is a fluke.

When the new version of AntiVir suite comes out, I will re-evaluate.

 

Re: AV Comparatives is Almost Due

I scan because I'm interested... I don't open... and I know that 90% won't protect me, but it's better than 50%, right?

And my parents use the computer too... If I use other AV than no BitDefender, Avira or Kaspersky my computer needs 3 days to be infected if they open attachments (I said to don't open but...)... (they use limited account and the computer won't be infected in fact, of course, but it's not the question). If I can use an AV that block more of course I'll choose it.

 

Re: AV Comparatives is Almost Due

I really don't believe that it's truth. When I send samples to ESET, Symantec and other they add the signatures more than 1 week later (or never) while BD, KS and Avira add in the same day... maybe 1 or 2 hours later...

 

All I can do is relate my own experiences with Norton. Now my ISP uses McAfee and Postini to filter my email so I haven't ran across a virus by that method yet.

But I have gone into the internet's "seedier" side quite a few times testing NIS (and Vista) and always came away from it clean. Either NIS blocked a trojan or IE's Protected Mode blocked it (I can imagine if it got past those two UAC would be next "shield"). I have not had any kind of malware detected since I installed NIS back in March. This has been verified by various online scanners, antispyware progs, and recently a few other security suites.

I don't know why people are in such denial over Norton's resurrection. I can understand where the reputation came from, the '03-'06 years. I, too, was a Norton basher as well. But I cannot bash what I have experienced in the '07-up versions. NIS '07 is 200% better than '04 (the last time I tried Norton) and '08 is 15% better than '07. Anybody saying '08 is bloatware is just blowing it out of their...uh...other orifice.

The only concern I have is that in all the work to improve it's performance that detection did not suffer. That is why I am more concerned with the Feb. '08 comparative tests right now. Sure I am happy with Norton's results this month but this was with '07.

 

Re: AV Comparatives is Almost Due

Hi everybody!

This is my personality review on AV-Comparatives Anti-Virus test from Feb 2007 until Aug 2007.

On-Demand Test Feb 2007+ProActive-Test May 2007+On-Demand Test August 2007

For example: Kaspersky Antivirus
97,89+35+98,46=231,35
231,35÷3=77,1166≈77,12%

 

Re: AV Comparatives is Almost Due

Thanks to the PDM!!!