AV-Comparatives Retrospective / Proactive Test May 2011 released!

http://www.av-comparatives.org/en/comparativesreviews/retrospective-test

 

AV-Comparatives Retrospective/Proactive Test May 2011

Here:

http://www.av-comparatives.org/en/comparativesreviews/retrospective-test

G Data first, with Eset and Avira tied for second as far as detection goes. G Data and Eset penalized for false positives though.

 

Re: AV-Comparatives Retrospective/Proactive Test May 2011

Norton/Symantec did not take part in the test, interesting.

 

What's up with MS, maybe the February signatures sucked? (They sucked in the other test too with February signatures). OneCare sucked, then they released MSE and poured resources into good detection rates, now it's sliding again.

Going to try Windows 8 beta without AV, seems pointless these days. Maybe not for standard users, but definitely for me, looking at those detection rates.

 

Re: AV-Comparatives Retrospective/Proactive Test May 2011

Thanks.. At last a good result for Avira. Alas! Avast not included. I am almost sure it has improved proactive detection. Because G Data scored good but Bitdefender not.

 

Re: AV-Comparatives Retrospective/Proactive Test May 2011

Yes and then you wonder, HMMM! How does BitDefender get 100% on 0-day (which frankly is BS) on av-test.org yet score poorly elsewhere?

 

I think MS's idea was to have millions of users systems functioning as honeypots... perhaps to increase detection rates of the enterprise product version?

Sometime ago an user by the nickname Chris_MS (Microsoft employee?) did say they prefer to get samples from users themselves... Maybe this was a hint...

I have to consider a different solution to relatives, because, as you say, MSE detections rate are increasing... (Note, I'm being sarcastic!!! )

 

I think more vendors are starting to get the fact that these tests are useless in regards to determining how well they protect your PC as many did not include in this test.

In my opinion, that's a step in the right direction.

 

I surely agree with you. Everybody sees that the only test which has some real world relevance is the whole product dynamic test.

But the most vendors will stay particapating in the on-demand tests I think, simply because the results (most are around 99%/98%) are way higher there in comparison to the retrospective tests, which makes them look good to average users.
Also I do think most of them will keep participating in the yearly performance test.

 

Re: AV-Comparatives Retrospective/Proactive Test May 2011

the methodology is different. the sample size is different. the types of samples are different. why is it so hard for people to accept that different testing organizations can have different results with different sample sizes and different methodologies?

(FYI: AV-test's proactive detection sample size for their latest report: 29. AV-C's? 9177.)

 

Re: AV-Comparatives Retrospective/Proactive Test May 2011

I guess I didn't put enough emphasis on "100% 0-day", something no AV in the world is capable off.

 

I question the point of this test without an Internet connection. I understand what they're trying to represent but I don't think it's something useful to represent. How often are machines in working offline scenarios executing files that wouldn't have gone through the on-access scanner at some time prior?

And clearly the vendors are thinking this since more and more of them are dropping out of this test.

 

Re: AV-Comparatives Retrospective/Proactive Test May 2011

...that's not what's claimed. what's claimed is a 100% detection/thwart/whatever rate in av-test's 29 0-day sample test.

i'd imagine you'd agree that 29 samples is tiny and that the 9177 samples in this av-c test likely produce a better picture, right?

at any rate, totally OT.

 

Extremely rare for ESET to get false positives like that. Not consistent with my usage of their products.

 

Why were Avast!, AVG, Norton all missing? Come on!

 

Norton missing?

 

the important things to me norton & avast
and its not include it

 

I much prefer the real world tests. static on demand scanner tests with outdated signatures only show part of the story.

 

I use eset online scanner as my primary on-demand scanner. I have to say that its FP rate on clean files have increased.

 

It would have been nice to see actual number of malware detected in addition to summary % detection.

 

I agree that the number of false positives in tests (both AV-Test and AV-Comparatives) caused by ESET have increased over let's say the past six months. However I have never encountered one myself.

 

Sorry to hear that. I just installed the beta 5 yesterday. I guess we'll see how long it lasts.

 

Posts 15-17, the non-inclusion of some vendors has been touched upon, starting on page four of the document.

 

Have you reported these files to ESET to confirm or deny that they are false positives? In the mean time, could you post here some of those detections which might give us a clue as to what files you mean?

 

You mean in "Vipre´s direction".I would pay some good money to see it thoroughly tested just once.