AV-C Single Product Test: Immunet

Discussion in 'other anti-virus software' started by m0unds, Oct 3, 2010.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. m0unds

    m0unds Guest

  2. LODBROK

    LODBROK Guest

    Version? Free or Plus?? Minor details. :cautious:

    The results mirror those of BitDefender in AV-C's August OD report.

    So, if this is for Plus it's just another validation of signature based solutions. Big whoop.

    But if it's Free, then this holds great promise for their cloud detection model.

    But... Version? Free or Plus?? Minor details. :cautious:
     
  3. m0unds

    m0unds Guest

    i'd wager a guess that immunet wouldn't submit their companion av to be tested by itself by av-c. call it a hunch.

    just serves to re-affirm for the people who use plus that it has decent detection and it's great at generating false positives. on the flip side to that, good luck getting them to address FPs or bugs, since their support team is way, way, way overburdened.
     
  4. eugene91

    eugene91 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2010
    Posts:
    189
    False Alarm: Many ..
     
  5. Kyle1420

    Kyle1420 Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 27, 2008
    Posts:
    479
    I wish this test for more detailed :(
     
  6. JohnnyDollar

    JohnnyDollar Guest

    I would like to know just how many false alarms. Also, what 3rd party engine is Immunet using in the paid version?
     
  7. atomomega

    atomomega Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2010
    Posts:
    1,285
    AFAIK, is the "top-seller" Bit Defender... man, they have their engine everywhere...
     
  8. m0unds

    m0unds Guest

    yep, bitdefender it is.
     
  9. Syncman9

    Syncman9 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2004
    Posts:
    113
    Location:
    UK
    It's the Plus Version, it says within the PDF early on.
     
  10. LODBROK

    LODBROK Guest

    Good. They updated it. The word "plus" doesn't even exist, visually or searched by, in the PDF I downloaded a few days ago.
     
  11. alhuger

    alhuger Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2009
    Posts:
    82
    I did not see this thread until it was pointed out to me by a user on our forum, so FWIW I apologize for not getting to it sooner.

    The designation of 'Many' for FP's means: Between 15 - 100

    Off the top of my head the *same* designation was given to:

    AVG
    Kaspersky
    Mcafee
    Panda
    Trend
    Norman

    I suspect others were given it as well, but those above I can recall without digging for it. I should also point out we beat all of those vendors on detections. In fact we beat nearly everyone for detections in the review. Somehow these two rather salient pieces of information escaped this thread.

    I've a great deal of respect for many members of Wilders but I find that 9 times out of ten the posting here runs to the negative. That's truly a shame because it's otherwise a good resource. I will not be following the rest of this thread, if you wish to discuss it further I'm happy to answer questions in our own forum or over email.

    Cheers,
    al
     
    Last edited: Oct 9, 2010
  12. lordraiden

    lordraiden Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2006
    Posts:
    3,072
    It's an excellent result so far for a new and light AV, maybe the people would realize better how good the result is if the this one would have appeared together with the main report (they used the same samples at the same time, same methodology...). I hope that Immunet will be able to enter soon in the main tests.

    Also would be nice to see a comparative for the free version I think that will beat some of their paid competitors (real time scanners that run together with any AV)
     
    Last edited: Oct 9, 2010
  13. Saraceno

    Saraceno Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2008
    Posts:
    2,404
    Great work for being tested for the first time and especially for a relatively new program.

    Last time I tested, very light to run. Nice price too. :thumb:
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.