AV Comparatives Sep 2013 Real World Results

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

- Usual top players already doing their thing.

- Panda, Sophos on the rise.

- Bullguard doing better.

- It's a pleasant surprise that Avira is doing very well the last months. Always believed they could roll back the years to the late noughties if only they would apply themselves, no matter what people say. Laziness can be fixed, ineptitude is forever.

- Qihoo not so good.

- Would still say eScan (didn't they license BD's BB though ) and even G-Data got good results for all the user dependency, because their BBs detected everything non-green even though they are designed to ask questions.

 

Good Work for Avast and avira once again in the WPDT,the competition was indeed tight and tough but 0.6% bypass is great

Hopefully,we will see better stuff with deepscreen in v9 for avast and cloud for avira

 

Emsisoft is as usually 100%. It must be because of its BB?

 

Way to go Panda back where it should be

 

Wow, Panda Cloud 100% detection

No, then you would see user-dependent, you can see it in the August results. Looks like it managed to block them all this time before the BB jumps in the action.

 

are there still people who really belives in these av-comparatives test ?!

a Joke !!!

 

Actually real world test is the best one and the rest are pretty much useless...

 

Panda's consistent improvement over the years has been impressive.

 

According to the graph is the free version of Panda Cloud the one that they have tested, and it has a 100% detection...

 

Actually the real-world tests are becoming too easy, soon everyone has 100%.

From what I see from our own cloud, the real-world tests don't reflect the "real" malware situation so well. Well, at least from our point of view on "reality".

I think it is getting really hard for the testers to find really new zero-minute samples, they don't have their own cloud to collect samples. Testing samples that are 1 day old or even older doesn't reflect the life time that malware samples usually have these days. The testing scenario is still too artificial.

 

Do you publish reports about your tests?

 

URLs are tested right away, not collected days before.
Even AV guys (despite their cloud and hands-on sources) at the URL competition we did at VB were not able to find many URLs which could bypass up-to-date AV protection and system...
What I currently see is that certain products which lately score high in real-world tests also tend to have a high number of FPs...
Anyway, I think you are right (about what you see in your cloud), but the problem is that you see different stuff because users have outdated/unpatched systems, while we use a more current setup.

 

Andreas, yes - but how old is the malware URL in the moment you find it?

I did not find time to participate in that URL competition with grabbing a zero minute malware URL from our cloud backend. ;-) But even then, it doesn't mean that the malware (URL) is totally new. It's just the first user that scans it with the Avira cloud.

Also agree on the false positives, I think they should influence the scoring much more and there should be much more intensive FP tests - not just getting software from download portals.

 

Avira back on the track for this type of test

 

=
AV-C Whole Product Dynamic Test Results - May 2013
http://chart.av-comparatives.org/chart1.php?chart=chart2&year=2013&month=5&sort=1&zoom=3

=
Avira

 

exactly, and this is the real-world: when the user encounters the URL.

 

Panda, well done!

 

7anon, and 3 more detection modules are very close to be added to the APC. We are just starting with adding stuff (the currently included detection modules are technology wise about 1+ year old) and actually are far from fully using all possibilities that the cloud is offering.

Still much to learn.

 

Microsoft Windows 7 baseline protection

Just one question. Why do you call a fully patched system out-of-box?

 

...and the testers real-world is not everyone's real-world

 

@ Stefan Kurtzhals,
Thanks for the info.

 

Exactly!

 

the real world is what my wife tells me it is

 

There goes the 100% detection...

 

It will be interesting to compare Avira APC vs avast Deepscreen in the future.....