Anti-Malware Test Lab - Testing of proactive antivirus protection II

Discussion in 'other anti-virus software' started by Thankful, Mar 16, 2009.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Thankful

    Thankful Savings Monitor

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2005
    Posts:
    3,731
    Location:
    New York City
  2. trjam

    trjam Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2006
    Posts:
    9,057
    Location:
    North Carolina
    Hmm, Norman must have gotten Platinum.;)

    Congrats to Eset also
     
  3. Killtek

    Killtek Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2007
    Posts:
    100
    Avira got screwed... I'll take 71% detection with 0.13% False Positives any day.
     
  4. RejZoR

    RejZoR Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2004
    Posts:
    6,426
    Main problem with AVIRA is that they have absolutelly s**tty FP fixing rate for no-cd patches and similar grey area programs. These are critical for me, but they refuse to fix them. And i totally hate that.

    You may ask why, but i do lots of gaming on ACER Aspire One, a small portable notebook (netbook) that doesn't have any CD/DVD optical drive.
    So only way to play games there is to use no-cd patches.
    So AVIRA is completelly useless there.

    I'd pick vendor that has lower detection rate but also fixes this grey area stuff instead AVIRA. Be it crack or patch, if it's false detection i really don't care what that thing serves for. It's not malicious and thats all they'd have to know.
    So until they start doing that at AVIRA labs, i'll be using something else.
    avast! or Rising Antivirus preferably...

    I would also like to point out one important thing regarding avast!.
    Everyone, and i mean EVERYONE are complaining over lack of heuristics in avast!. Well, who's your heuristics God now? It's no worse than others and completelly on par with others that have bunch of checkboxes and settings for heuristics and they hype them as best thing since sliced bread.
    avast! has proved itself SEVERAL times in AV-Comparatives and AV-Test plus this one that lack of checkboxes and settings for heuristics doesn't automatically mean that antivirus sucks and that it completelly lacks any kind of proactive defenses.
     
  5. Jin K

    Jin K Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2008
    Posts:
    105
    congratulations to Kaspersky :thumb:

    its getting better everytime ;)
     
  6. ambient_88

    ambient_88 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2008
    Posts:
    854
    The problem with cracks and no-cd patches is that, more often than not, they contain malicious code. They are also almost always packed, so that only increases the chances of identifying them as malware. Since these are not official, Avira probably thinks that instead of worrying about them, they'll just leave them alone. IMHO, it's better to be aggressive when it comes to things like these. If one really wants to use one, then he/she can include it in the exceptions. That's (one of) the reasons it's there.
     
  7. JasSolo

    JasSolo Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 9, 2007
    Posts:
    414
    Location:
    Denmark
    Ok, I'll take 52% detection with 0% FP's any day then ;)


    Cheers
     
  8. lodore

    lodore Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2006
    Posts:
    9,006
    Well done KL!
    same result as nod32 and less fp's
    its quite impressive.
     
  9. progress

    progress Guest

    "The detection rate is more important than some FP", this sentence you will find on Avira forums :D
     
  10. RejZoR

    RejZoR Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2004
    Posts:
    6,426
    No. That doesn't apply here at all.
    I don't mind false positives that get fixed eventually.
    AVIRA doesn't fix these AT ALL. So that IS a major problem.
     
  11. gery

    gery Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2008
    Posts:
    1,785
    AVG isn't that bad though:thumb: :thumb:
     
  12. virtumonde

    virtumonde Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2008
    Posts:
    501
    Is not a big deal since you can make exclusions,You are an advanced user you have a good ideea what's clean or not, i don't get it why you are upset.
    They are not such a large company and their virus researchers must focus on the real threats.
     
  13. funkydude

    funkydude Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2004
    Posts:
    6,852
    I agree, congratulations to Kaspersky, BitDefender & ESET. I'm actually surprised at BitDefender, so nice job.
     
  14. progress

    progress Guest

    I see, Avira doesn't fix all this grayware because it may be dangerous :rolleyes: I also don't like this behavior, I go with AVG ;)
     
  15. nomarjr3

    nomarjr3 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2007
    Posts:
    502
    Good job AVG :thumb:
     
  16. RejZoR

    RejZoR Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2004
    Posts:
    6,426
    Well, ALWIL is small but they also dedicate lots of manpower into fixing FP's. Also every no-cd or whatever, doesn't automatically mean it's malware.
    So saying it "might" be dangerous doesn't really justify that.
    Adding 20 or 30 exclusions just because of that is just plain lame and annoying.
    I rather install AV that doesn't have such lame problems and restrictions.
    And i will unless they'll change.
     
  17. Arup

    Arup Guest

    71%..........thats the magic number that matters to me and if the FP was around 1% maybe I might worry.
     
  18. gery

    gery Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2008
    Posts:
    1,785
    Poor TRENDMicro. Almost every time i see them in a competition i see them second too the end of the row . They must have liked positioning at the end :thumbd:
     
  19. trjam

    trjam Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2006
    Posts:
    9,057
    Location:
    North Carolina
    Now hold on there cowboy, those are some mighty strong words. I think Stefan should be the one to say yea or nay to that statement.
     
  20. trjam

    trjam Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2006
    Posts:
    9,057
    Location:
    North Carolina
    Of course even though Norman was not tested, if any of you ever happen to be the one in a million that gets one with them, err, its:
    falsepositive@norman.no
    not that you will ever need to though.;)
     
  21. lodore

    lodore Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2006
    Posts:
    9,006
    Why should you have to always deal with fp's which never get fixed?
    why not change to a vendor that deals with real malware and has minimal fp's?
    you can have both.
    you will always have some fp's but some vendors are much better at sorting them out.
    last time i sent an fp to Kl i got a reply in less than an hour and was fixed in the next update.
     
  22. RejZoR

    RejZoR Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2004
    Posts:
    6,426
    From what i've seen, Stefan also has ppl above him who approve or deny stuff.
     
  23. trjam

    trjam Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2006
    Posts:
    9,057
    Location:
    North Carolina
    Holy Smoking Joe Frazier, this is true.:doubt:
     
  24. gery

    gery Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2008
    Posts:
    1,785
    Amen bro:thumb: :thumb: :thumb:
     
  25. The Hammer

    The Hammer Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2005
    Posts:
    5,619
    Location:
    Toronto Canada
    Good showing by Dr.Web,:cool: but I don't get the discrepancy between Kaspersky and F-Secureo_O .
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.