AV-C Whole Product Dynamic Test Results - May 2013

Test Published/Revised today 17 June.

http://www.av-comparatives.org/dynamic-tests/

http://chart.av-comparatives.org/chart1.php

[noparse]http://www.av-comparatives.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/avc_prot_201305en.pdf[/noparse]

 

I wonder what avast! has done to reduce user dependency?

 

AV-C Whole Product Dynamic Test Results - May 2013 - Short: By Value

 

With a shameless plug to my post here the real surprise is the rise of Trend Micro to stand beside Kaspersky.

Bitdefender = Emsisoft continues to do very well.

Avast is at 99.5% [allowing all user dependent events to be successful], but the file detection test [yet to come] will be its real test to hold above 99% success.

Avira continues to disappoint....

......while AVG is very good, subject to a very high success rate indeed for user dependent matters.

**************************

@ Charyb maybe Evo - Gen ? [refer true indian's post here ]

-cheers,
feandur

 

Improved AutoSandbox dynamic analysis, so that it detects more malware.

 

Actually, it's more because of improvements done over the AutoSandbox. And still more to come...

 

I'm not sure I understand what you mean. How would an on-demand only test be the "real test"? It's the least relevant test of all the protection/detection tests performed by AV-Comparatives these days...

Thanks,
Vlk

 

Trend Micro seems to have been consistently improving this year.

I am actually happily surprised by Kaspersky. While it is almost always in the top 3 (separated by.002 - 2 %) absolute perfection 100% has been rare.

 

Hmm excellent results for avast and kaspersky. Mcafee also seems to be doing well.lol. It would have been great to have Symantec and Comodo included in these tests!

It seems that the IDP module is saving AVG a lot, its AV detection is getting really bad.

 

I'd say more of Evo-Gen, more "exact" Auto Sandbox detections where user doesn't really have much to do, if analysis finds out it was malware and also FileRepMalware which is reputation based detection, but with no user dependency.

I just wonder when Dyna-Gen will see the light of the day. When that happens, it will be a kick ass day...

 

I like what I see....

 

Kaspersky has a solid protection...

 

I agree, without IDP it would be really bad.

A free Trend Micro AV would be nice!

 

I dont understand how you can say avira continues to disappoint when it is blocking 96%....!
I dont know what sort of renegade web surfer you are but i surf relatively safely and so what if my chosen av does not block 100% as no av can do this despite what these ridiculous tests purport to prove.

Just another meaningless test to boost security vendor sales.

 

One should tend to wonder instead why avast! Free can't match March's 0% compromised score, user dependent or not. Most likely the nature of the threat dynamics than... ??

The superlative scores of May's 0.5% and April's 1.3% compromised should also be considered within the context that but for two others all the apps are $uites, many of which weren't all that stellar.

 

Very good results Eset. Kudos

 

but after using trend micro for a bit it is a bit high in fp's i had it flag things no other av did and they were def not malicious. eset did good, avira a bit surprised, the rest about normal except mcafee who i would refuse to use now anyway with the whole nsa thing.

 

My observation: this shows that you can't go wrong by Kaspersky for detection. Also, Eset is doing surprisingly well.

Avira is going south.

Once upon a time, VIPRE was promising. But why on earth would anyone purchase it these days ?

 

Nonsense..
Its only 1 test and proves nothing of the effectiveness of any AV.

 

Then feel free to start testing a product every day during about 6 months then give us your conclusions...cya

 

Hmmm.

Well first off.
Seeing as these testing organisations do not seem to disclose what malware is used to test with then the results can be taken with an open mind.

Another point..
What exactly are the chances of the average user actually coming across this undisclosed malware...?

What i have noticed also is that user habits are not taken into consideration at all.
I for 1 only visit certain sites that i know to be safe,so could you please explain to me why detection rates and real world tests are relevant to me...?

In all the time i have been using a windows computer i have only ever come across about half a dozen real malwares.

If i were crazy enough i would visit malware sites and bombard my av with malware and hope it stopped all of them.
Of course it will not happen.

My point is that these tests seem to be aimed at people with unhealthy browsing habits.

Thanks.

 

That's because AVG still doesn't use the cloud in any significant manner (still used only to verify FPs) and tries to use IDP to cover up the lack of an effective reputation based analysis system. I think that was sort of the idea, with some articles a few years ago claiming AVG wanted to avoid cloud based security.

 

What is IDP?

 

Identity Protection.

 

It's easy to see from the chart that Avira is now among the poorest performers comparatively, instead of the best like it used to be. I think that's the basis for the comment...