new av-comparatives nov-09

Same here and I agree 100%

 

x3 I've never had FP problems with Avira.

 

i think FP testing is important if its a rediculous amount... but in this case wer its only about idk 10 or so more FP's but in contrast several THOUSAND more detections, i dont think the comparison is fair at all since with those stats, ud probly be a lot more likely to come accross one of those several thousand viruses than one of the 10 or so more FP's Avira has compared to its competition that got Advanced+

 

What would be interesting to know. Is how many clean files they test Anti-Virus against, that way we would know what the % of False positives really are.

 

Remember the size of the clean set is not the same as the size of the malware set. Unless we know the size of the clean set, it is impossible to know the effect of FPs.

 

Yes. This is my point.

 

Without being too pleonastic I wouldn't even try to compare AV Comparatives to Dennis Technology Lab financed and supported by Symantec:

http://blog.avast.com/2009/10/30/de...testing-paid-for-by-an-av-company-be-trusted/

http://www.dennis.co.uk/dennis_site/

 

Agreed . The AV Comparatives is not a real-world test, and doesn't test all the protection capabilities of the product, just the on-demand scan. So this test is totally outdated and irrelevant.

I dont know why Clementi keeps doing these ridiculous tests when he knows and agrees that they mean nothing. For those of you using Norton, just bear in mind that this test doesn't test SONAR2 or Quorum or Browser Protection or Intrusion Prevention or SafeWeb.

Post from a clueless Ted follows.

 

You know it is true that AV Comparatives is not a real world test, if we look at the activities of Dennis Technology Lab we can see that they really test the whole spectrum of life indeed:

 

I will take an excellent test methodology with a crappy website vs a crappy test methdology and crappy website anyday.

Osaban you didn't read the Dennis Labs doc did you. Oh well.. some folks are sseleulc

 

I have always thought this way ever since they modified their FP "rating system"

 

Unfortunately I have the bad habit to read everything that is generously proffered in this forum, including the garbage that hides behind big names. I don't think it was a good idea to introduce Dennis Labs to this forum, and specifically when talking about AV Comparatives.

 

Agreed.

 

AVIRA has taken far too long to detect such a fantastic product with such a huge margin. I could have done it in a few minutes.

<C code follows for on demand scanner>

for (all files on the hard disk)
{
printf ("File is infected");
Quarantine ();
}

<C code follows for on-access scanner>

if (file accessed)
{
printf ("File is infected");
Quarantine ();
}

Thats it.. 100% detection with near 100% FPs.. I win, with large margin.


You get the point.. FPs matter Detection does mean @##&*) if FPs are high.

 

AV Comparative is doing the right thing! Dump all anti virus with high FP....my experience with FP is disaster (by Prevx).

 

not really, ur example doesnt make any sense because of how over exaggerated it is... no one ever claimed Avira has 100% detection, just a clearly higher rate and gets penalized WAY to heavily for the FP compared to the Praise they shuld get on the detection. since the FP's may be higher than the others, but theyre not unreasonably higher...

 

I do

 

I think he was joking with the pseudocode example...

 

That is exactly the point. You can't tell what that number means without context, just like my post.
I never said testing for FPs was meaningless, or that by golly they can't do any harm, or.. whatever. I think by choosing NOD as an example i may done something wrong.

 

ESET : consistent performer

 

I second that, Zombini AV has superior detection

 

What a slap for Symantec, all the free AVs have outperformed it in this test!

Glad to see that KIS is doing good in the proactive test, it will reassure some whio expressed concerns about the heuristics and generic detections of KIS.

 

I don't think it matters to them. Just like kaspersky had a bad day during early AV-comparatives and now Norton is in somewhat similar dilemma. They will definitely be good next time.
In mean time Congratulations to all the products getting Advanced+ grade
They help us in keeping free from malware.

 

The Dennis Labs ... is that part the same company that publish PC magazines in the U.K?

 

IMO this proactive test carries the least amount of weight since most of us keep our AV updated. Let us not forget that those with behavior analysis and cloud scanning had that feature disabled.

Now this is what I am eagerly awaiting. IBK, are Hitman Pro & Prevx going to participate?