AV-Comparatives February 2007

30% Do I hear 32%!?!

/Sarcasm

IBK - The 85% needed was that a result from last years testing or sometime this year? It strikes me as odd that Ikarus scored below 85%....

 

No, you do not 30% was already a wild "high" guess, i assume it's even below 30%.

 

How would F-Prot 3.16f have performed in these most recent tests? Because F-Prot still offers this version, many would like to know how well 3.16f can afford protection relative to other AV apps.

Dave HAL

 

Significant lower. my guess would be aprox. 40.000 more misses for v3.

 

Safe to say not near as well as Version 6. Without a few vials of blood drawn it's impossible to say what the test results would be. My guess would be in the the mid to upper 80's percent wise but I ain't no Doctor or Inspector...

Oops the Inspector already chimed in...

 

They've called for the devil, so what's your next wish?

 

A free year of F-Prot and maybe forgiveness or a year of good health or...etc

 

Hey, 40,000+ misses ain't bad for 3.16f! After all, WHO or WHAT is perfect in this imperfect world (in the sense of Beth's semantics)!

Dave HAL

EDIT: IMPLANT INTERRRRROGATIVE: Were the AV vendors allowed to set their respective AV apps to use paranoid heuristics or were they each required to be tested straight out of the box sans any tweak?

 

That's funny, i thought IC refers to himself as God, now it's the Devil. Spilt personality maybe lol.


StevieO

 

My understanding is that each program is configured to its maximum capability before testing.

 

IBK,

Even though I know you're busy and probably don't have the time, I figured I'd make my suggestion anyways, as I feel it might be a worthy one, albeit a time-demanding one. Essentially, it would be to do two simultaneous comparisons, one with the default settings of each AV and one with all the AVs set to maximum protection (as you currently do I think). This additional test should create an economy of scale in regards to the time it takes to preform the tests, thereby reducing significantly the time it takes to preform additional tests (like this default-settings test) since you're using the same AVs, malware samples, and methodology and in this case only changing the settings. I think this would result in some interesting considerations.

-TypicallyOffbeat

 

Would think that users set 'less than optimal' for their AV's either because they don't know (and also wouldn't know AV-Comparatives) or their AV slows their system (or overdoes FP's) with 'max settings'.

Would be more interesting to see a report on how different AV Programs react to 'max' settings.

 

I hope computerWorld has permission to link directly to the report
with some not so nice words for MS


http://www.computerworld.com/action...ArticleBasic&articleId=9012078&intsrc=hm_list

 

IBK,

Is there any chance that you are going to test freeware versions too?I think many people would be interested and it appears that one can't come to safe conclusions anymore based on what the "pro" version scores.Especially for AVG.

 

Already discussed;

 

Oh,sorry about that.I missed it.

 

No problem, as it was a good question

I know that it is difficult sometimes keeping up with a long thread.

 

I too would like to see the free ones tested. Too many users are not going to get the message that you can't go by the results of the paid to know how the free would do any longer. And actually, testing the free ones may be more important than testing the paid ones because so many average users have one of the free ones. I just read at dslreports that 80% of those posting HijackThis logs that this person helps are users runnng either AVG free or Avira free and they get infected while running these two and then these do not clean and they have to reformat. So, I think testing the free ones is just as, if not more important, than the paid ones.

 

I have not used freeware AV´s for many years, but now with Vista not having many compatible AV solutions I did download a free one. Avast Antivirus and I am positively surprised about the level of configuration I can do with the free version. I am one of the people who didnt think that there where too much difference between the free and the paid version.

looking at the comparison for Avast free and pro, there doesnt seem to be any critical difference imo. Sure script blocking could be nice to have but it can be acquired by other (free) means.
Do you mean that they dont use the same definition files? Do the real time scanners differ? What is the most critical difference that makes the free version not catching as many viruses and stuff than the paid version? (other than script blocking)

Personally I am waiting for my paid Drweb to catch up.

 

@sukarof

Avast free and Pro have the same detection.

 

Yeah I thought so. Anything else would be very strange

 

I also believe that for Virus, Trojan and Worms; AntiVir Classic would equal AntiVir Premium.

However; Premium provides anti-spyware/adware protection that Classic does not.

If you look at any of the 'HiJack This' aid sites, you will see that 'spyware/adware' infections are often the problem.

Any users of the {free} AV's should know that they also need protection from a Firewall
(I use ZA but many other free Firewalls are also available and as with AV's, find one that works best for you).

Probably even more important would be (again free) to have several anti-spyware/adware protections
and here is where you really need to be careful what you install:

"...these products are of unknown, questionable, or dubious value as anti-spyware protection.

To further add to your protection, you can also run online scans and Wilders other anti-malware etc.
boards will give you options for many additional layers of protection
_______________________________________

As it has been written so often, "The best protection lies in the finger on the Mouse"

 

Good to hear. Spy- and adware is easily taken care of without Pro versions (or dedicated apps) anyway.

 

I also agree with some others here, that since free AV's are propably more popular than pay Av's, it is of importance to have them tested separate. As important as the 'pro' version tests to say the least. I was under impression that Andreas is not getting payed by those AV companies or any?
Though I can understand the effort it would take for those test for sure.

 

I noticed a slashdot story is direct-linking to the results page...