any new av tests floating around ..

Discussion in 'other anti-virus software' started by zfactor, Feb 18, 2008.

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

    zfactor Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2005
    Posts:
    6,012
    Location:
    on my zx10-r
    just curious to see what they are looking like now.. i dont base it on these except for maybe a few better tests but i like to read them to see whats going on.. i have not seen any of late.. anyone know of any good ones out now... recent ones i mean?? thanks
     
  2. Xenophobe

    Xenophobe Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 26, 2007
    Posts:
    174
  3. zfactor

    zfactor Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2005
    Posts:
    6,012
    Location:
    on my zx10-r
    thanks ill give it a read.. just being curious
     
  4. zfactor

    zfactor Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2005
    Posts:
    6,012
    Location:
    on my zx10-r
    hmm interesting results there.. they say that avira had a much lower false pos rate than almost all of them including kaspersky.. normally that is not the case.. is avira getting that much better with fp's ... also they agreed to another test i saw recently where avg scored very very well much better than it has in the past... very nice for avg..

    im just suprised kaspersky only got satisfactory for fp's where usually they do very well there.. hmmm... nice quick red though..
     
  5. Xenophobe

    Xenophobe Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 26, 2007
    Posts:
    174
    Also, here's a thread about it.
     
  6. zfactor

    zfactor Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2005
    Posts:
    6,012
    Location:
    on my zx10-r
    thank you ill read the thread..
     
  7. Zombini

    Zombini Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2006
    Posts:
    469
    The FPs table tells the whole story. Anyone can create a AV product and churn out defs every hour but have high FPs. It is much more difficult to have high detection and ZERO FPs at the same time. I see only one company on there that got a ++ for detection and a ++ for FPs. :)
     
  8. Bunkhouse Buck

    Bunkhouse Buck Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2007
    Posts:
    1,056
    Location:
    Las Vegas
    Yes and I reinstalled NIS 2008. It runs light and is effective. There are many Norton bashers here as you have said, that is because they prefer (apparently) boutique AVs. A company that can produce ++ for detection and ++ for FPs- is clearly doing something right regardless of the sentiment on this site.
     
  9. trjam

    trjam Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2006
    Posts:
    9,057
    Location:
    North Carolina
    Norton is a very good AV.
     
  10. giorom

    giorom Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2008
    Posts:
    2
  11. zfactor

    zfactor Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2005
    Posts:
    6,012
    Location:
    on my zx10-r
    well i just happen to know italian.. lol.. ill check it out thanks
     
  12. C.S.J

    C.S.J Massive Poster

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2006
    Posts:
    5,029
    Location:
    this forum is biased!
    a few others are anti-malware.ru and antivirus.ru
     
    Last edited: Feb 19, 2008
  13. EraserHW

    EraserHW Malware Expert

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2005
    Posts:
    588
    Location:
    Italy
    Uhm, if there has been a discussion about the goodness of AV-Comparatives in this forum, then this one should neither be here.

    First: Anywhere is well explained HOW samples are choosed - they simply expose that they tested AVs against 46800 infected files but not how have they checked if files are really malware.

    Second: Anywhere is written WHICH AVs settings have been used by testers. Who really know if settings used are the "same" for every antivirus software? (obviously I'm not talking about "same settings" in a strict way because every antivirus has its own configuration. I just don't know if settings used are comparable each one).

    Third: They talk about viruses, trojan, worm and other kind of trash malware but they don't eplain what do they mean with this generic definition.

    Fourth: As far as I know, at least from who I asked about it, no AV company gave their agreement to be in this test.

    That's all
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.