AV-Comparatives (February 2009)

Discussion in 'other anti-virus software' started by Creer, Mar 22, 2009.

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

    pykko Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2005
    Posts:
    2,236
    Location:
    Romania...and walking to heaven
    Avira rules again in detection rates, but still it gets a little bit more FPs then Av-comparatives.org taste. :)
     
  2. Bunkhouse Buck

    Bunkhouse Buck Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2007
    Posts:
    1,058
    Location:
    Las Vegas
    I have used Avira for three years and had no FPs. My only concern is detection. The tester is free to set any criteria they want. For novice users, FPs are of course a consideration.
     
  3. Smokey

    Smokey Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2002
    Posts:
    1,514
    Location:
    Annie's Pub
    So when I read and understand well, for experienced users not? ;)

    <S>
     
  4. demonon

    demonon Guest

    Which two engines does G-Data use?
     
  5. elapsed

    elapsed Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2004
    Posts:
    7,076
    Avast and BitDefender.
     
  6. firzen771

    firzen771 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2007
    Posts:
    4,815
    Location:
    Canada
    keep in mind this test was made using the old version, Avira 8, imagine with Avira 9's improvements what the detection would have been... 99.99%? lol
     
  7. elapsed

    elapsed Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2004
    Posts:
    7,076
    Um, it was the old version of nearly every AV, so there's no injustice there.
     
  8. firzen771

    firzen771 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2007
    Posts:
    4,815
    Location:
    Canada
    was it? only ones i see are AVG's old version, Avira's, ESET. im not sure about some of the lesser known AV's (and im not counting minor updates, i mean major updates in versions)
     
  9. elapsed

    elapsed Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2004
    Posts:
    7,076
    As far as I see, pretty much anything that was released this year, which would make sense since the actual testing was done a while ago.
     
  10. Fly

    Fly Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2007
    Posts:
    2,201
    I was planning to ditch McAfee, and I still am.

    But I'm surpised to see how well they performed, a very high detection rate plus few false positives. That's hard to beat. If I recall, Norton didn't perform bad either, but because of their 'issues' it's off the table.

    One thing about the test: all (except Sophos) heuristics were set to high. I'm sure there is a reason why Kaspersky's heuristics' default is low !

    Too bad VIPRE wasn't included ! How can we make up our mind about this product ?

    I don't know about Eset, when I go to their website I'm redirected to a 'local' website, and for as far as I know, Eset Smart Security isn't even offered. Not exactly encouraging.

    That leaves me with the difficult choice about which AV to pick.
    Or to choose a non-signature based approach, which has its drawbacks.
     
  11. lodore

    lodore Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2006
    Posts:
    9,064
    btw symantec is Norton and it ranked top

    I have the kaspersky heristics on high for all modules and its fine.
    higher heristics use more resourses hence why low is the default.
     
  12. Macstorm

    Macstorm Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2005
    Posts:
    2,631
    Location:
    Sneffels volcano
    Although avira & gdata achieved phenomenal detection rates (real winners IMO) they were penalized because of their relatively 'high' :rolleyes: number of false positives and this time they couldn't get the highly desired 'Advance +' award.

    Let's see, the fp's were only 24 & 44 for avira & gdata respectively, over a test bed of 1.3 million :eek: of malware samples. Then again, the limit of fp's to achieve the '+' certification was 15. If you get 16 o more you are fried....even if you've reached over 99% of detection!!! OMG :rolleyes:

    Well, rules are rules. I guess IBK got bored lately with the avira & gdata's numerous awards all over the world and changed a bit his rules for this season (although it was announced in advance, i think)

    Anyway, congratulations to the new holders of the precious 'advanced +' prize ;)

    As for me, you keep giving me Avira anyday :thumb:
     
    Last edited: Mar 22, 2009
  13. Smokey

    Smokey Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2002
    Posts:
    1,514
    Location:
    Annie's Pub
    Sharpening rules isn't always bad, and can be even recommendable, this for several reasons. :)
     
  14. Macstorm

    Macstorm Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2005
    Posts:
    2,631
    Location:
    Sneffels volcano
    To please other contenders and help them to raise their sales, for example? ;)
     
  15. Quitch

    Quitch Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2008
    Posts:
    94
    Norton came out best this time, it scored high, it scanned fast and it had low false positives, all with the default settings. Avira achieved 99.7%, but did so with high FP and non-default settings, I don't understand why they're so eager to be tested at settings they're not happy shipping with.

    McAfee did damn well though, wonder if that's due to their Internet submission system? EDIT: It looks like it is, 95.something% without.

    Oddly, I'm disappointed by ESET, their detection is up but throughput has taken a nosedive. Kinda wishing I'd gone with Norton 2009 instead.

    I look forward to seeing some reports from av-comparatives which cover the full range of malware, including spyware.
     
    Last edited: Mar 22, 2009
  16. Smokey

    Smokey Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2002
    Posts:
    1,514
    Location:
    Annie's Pub
    Solely in interest of the user. BTW, IBK isn't "purchasable".
     
  17. NoIos

    NoIos Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2009
    Posts:
    607
    Great test. Surprised by McAfee's results.
    I'm sure this will help the competition...Avira is time to drop the FPs.
     
  18. Macstorm

    Macstorm Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2005
    Posts:
    2,631
    Location:
    Sneffels volcano
    I know. I'm just trying myself putting on other contender's shoes. No offense intended.
     
  19. bellgamin

    bellgamin Very Frequent Poster

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2002
    Posts:
    6,747
    Location:
    Hawaii
    *MOSTLY* not.

    There is (of course) some number of FPs that would make an AV of questionable utility, no matter HOW high its detection rate. On the other hand, downgrading an AV that had less than 2 dozen FPs, but with over 99% detection for a sample of 1.3 million nasties, is to me very questionable.

    Umm... you read minds? Otherwise, it's merely an opinion. (In my opinion, your opinion is correct.) ;)
     
    Last edited: Mar 22, 2009
  20. Firecat

    Firecat Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2005
    Posts:
    8,165
    Location:
    The land of no identity :D
    I would like people to pay special attention to the results of eScan in this test: The new version 10 appears to be using BitDefender engine ;)

    The overall scores are the same for both products with either having an edge in some categories. However, it is curious to notice that eScan has had less false positives in this test than BitDefender. Apparently the packer-based detections (Morphine packer) were absent in eScan. Can anyone comment about that?

    Also, kudos to Kingsoft for taking the challenge and appearing in AV-comparatives; their score is not bad for a first time entry. I hope their product gets better over time :)
     
  21. Macstorm

    Macstorm Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2005
    Posts:
    2,631
    Location:
    Sneffels volcano
    It may be because avira excels at heuristic protection and they wanted to achieve the maximum detection possible of malware, even risking of getting more fp's.
     
  22. Hugger

    Hugger Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2007
    Posts:
    1,003
    Location:
    Hackensack, USA
    What I'd really like to see is a comparative of NIS2009 and Avira Internet Security 9.
    If it is possible to test a suite, these two should go head to head.
    Hugger
     
  23. the Tester

    the Tester Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2002
    Posts:
    2,854
    Location:
    The Gateway to the Blue Hills,WI.
    According to the test documentation, Avira wasn't the only company that requested that there program be tested with higher settings than the default settings.
     
  24. Baz_kasp

    Baz_kasp Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 1, 2008
    Posts:
    593
    Location:
    London
    Kaspersky wanted to be tested with higher than default settings too I think.
     
  25. the Tester

    the Tester Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2002
    Posts:
    2,854
    Location:
    The Gateway to the Blue Hills,WI.
    Yep. Kaspersky was one.
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.