AV-Comparatives (February 2009)

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

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Jin K

    Jin K Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2008
    Posts:
    105
    kaspersky 97.1 !! man its a good result but their detection rate is getting lower in every new test !! i dont know where is the problem ?? maybe they must use some pulse update like norton
     
  2. firzen771

    firzen771 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2007
    Posts:
    4,815
    Location:
    Canada
    no, they have something beter than pulse, they have a HIPS and HIPS isnt used in on-demand tests, and im not sure whether or not they make use of KIS HIPS in the proactive tests, we will have to see.
     
  3. jad_123

    jad_123 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2008
    Posts:
    29
    While I am an avid reader of Wilders I do not post very often. I must say all this talk about Avira and false positives has me laughing. A quick simple look at the numbers between Avira and Symantec seems obvious which app I want installed. There is a detection difference of 12,236 samples. That is a lot of malware in my eyes. While false positives are an unbelievable difference of 17. Come on now.
     
  4. TechOutsider

    TechOutsider Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2008
    Posts:
    549
    Quick Reply seems to be disabled ...

    Anyways, first thing I said was nice site! Like the new layout/color scheme, orange and white.

    Noticed something of questionable nature; on page 6 the author(s) state Symantec asked for the heuristics to be set at max, however "...it made practically no difference". I remember in the last 2008 test Norton with the highest settings reached 99% while at default only 97.9.

    I see that you use KIS09. If you are happy with it, there is no reason to be disappointed by the lab tests.
     
    Last edited: Mar 22, 2009
  5. NoIos

    NoIos Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2009
    Posts:
    607
    You are right but the nature of the test has led the discussion to the false positives. As you can see are the false positives that mainly determine the rank. And even if we discuss it and why not...laugh a bit...believe me there are users that buy a product or use its free version because they see it in the top 5.

    So get listed in the top 5 it is important (specially when the test comes from AV-Comparatives)...and if for example Avira wants to be in the top 5...has to reduce its false positives, even if it's about a small number.
     
  6. NobleT

    NobleT Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2009
    Posts:
    58
    avira f-secure bitdefender etc is very excellent~~~(these antivirus always very goode in any tests:D )
    norman which i used and i loved is very poor ~in particular its script malware detection~~i don't know which updated on 19TH march.and his scan speed is always very slow not any improvement~~oh i think norman should make effort to change the sitation~~:oops:
     
  7. flick

    flick Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2008
    Posts:
    4
    Maybe I missed it but shouldn't "Hit to system performance" be part of the testing? If the AV detects 100% but jams my system then it isn't much use to me... Just a thought.
     
  8. NAMOR

    NAMOR Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 19, 2004
    Posts:
    1,529
    Location:
    St. Louis, MO
    That would be hard to test, since everyone computer is different (different hardware, software, OS's, etc). Many AV's that people have said are too heavy seem to run just fine on my computer.
     
  9. Osaban

    Osaban Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2005
    Posts:
    4,874
    That's why the whole advanced/ advanced + is a bit of a joke a la "Virus bulletin". People should do some simple maths, the differences between the results of Avira and GData versus the rest can't be even compared: we are talking about thousands in terms of detection (25,000- 30,000 range of samples). Have people tried to divide say in Avira's case 24/1,274,928 and Symantec 7/1,274,928 and compare the percentages in terms of FPs?
     
  10. vijayind

    vijayind Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2008
    Posts:
    1,413
    So they dumped Kaspersky 6 engine :thumb: The old engine was really making their detection mediocre.

    Kudos for Eset, IMO :cool: They have been doing well nearly every time, no matter what the sample set or the FP rules. That consistency is hard to match.
     
  11. TonyW

    TonyW Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2005
    Posts:
    2,741
    Location:
    UK
    They are a consideration if you have any of the packages installed prior to the false detections being fixed. As I've said before, I hardly know a lot of those packages, let alone have them installed.

    Users who have not had many or no FPs is likely due to (a) the heuristic being set at medium by default and not being changed to high and/or (b) not having any of the packages installed even when heuristic is set to high.

    I note that among the AVIRA FPs are packages relating to DrWeb and Trend Micro; my thought is if you're using AVIRA in the first instance, why would you have either of those two on your system anyway? It's good to know the FPs for these has been fixed, but in the real world scenario I doubt many novice users would have these or indeed several of those other packages installed at the same time.
     
  12. Arup

    Arup Guest

    FPs notwithstanding, Avira did swell.
     
  13. Bunkhouse Buck

    Bunkhouse Buck Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2007
    Posts:
    1,058
    Location:
    Las Vegas
    As I have stated many times here- my only concern is detection. If some are willing to trade hundreds/thousands of non-detected malware as a trade-off for fewer FPs- so be it. But not for me.
     
  14. Boost

    Boost Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2007
    Posts:
    1,294
    Agree 100%:thumb:
     
  15. pykko

    pykko Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2005
    Posts:
    2,236
    Location:
    Romania...and walking to heaven
    Something strange: F-Secure has significantly lower detection rates compared to Kaspersky and they were using the same engine....
     
  16. Jin K

    Jin K Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2008
    Posts:
    105
    i know and its great and giving such a good result on my test ، but you know its also something great to have such a good detection !! anyway the days will tell us
     
  17. fce

    fce Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2007
    Posts:
    758
    did you know the effect of FP for ordinary joe?....or let us say the country like china?
     
  18. firzen771

    firzen771 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2007
    Posts:
    4,815
    Location:
    Canada
    and do u also know the effect of a serious infection that could have been missed because the AV strived to have 0 FP's? :eek:
     
  19. fce

    fce Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2007
    Posts:
    758
    sorry i didn't get serious infection yet....let AV-Comparative result do the talking.
     
  20. progress

    progress Guest

    I agree, especially G Data has too many FP! Sometimes a FP (winlogon.exe, svchost.exe) is more dangerous than malware :rolleyes:
     
  21. jindroush

    jindroush Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2008
    Posts:
    15
    Everybody has FPs, but the results of this test don't say much, just that the product X caught Y fps on the AVC set. But you can't make any assumptions of out it (better said: you should not). That's why I think the penalization is wrong here, because attention span of most 'readers' doesn't go much beyond 'bright green' :cool:
     
  22. Jin K

    Jin K Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2008
    Posts:
    105
    F-Secure using the old Kaspersky 6 engine also has its own huerstic thats why..
     
  23. mvdu

    mvdu Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2003
    Posts:
    1,166
    Location:
    PA
    I've been satisfied with Avira.. false positives have been fewer lately on my computer at least. Does anyone have any explanation for so many AVs surpassing Kaspersky? Even Kaspersky's trojan detection, which was #1 for a long time, is now pretty average in this test.
     
  24. Nightwatch

    Nightwatch Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2008
    Posts:
    25
    Hi :)

    F-Secure is currently using the V.7. Take a look at this:
    http://forum.f-secure.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=8397

    Best regards,
    Nightwatch
     
  25. lodore

    lodore Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2006
    Posts:
    9,064
    even if its using the version 7 engine doesnt mean its using the kaspersky heristics. its probaly just engine plus sigs that are supplied by KL.

    btw doint base f-secure's proactive detection based on this.
    If the files are excuted deepguard 2 will catch pretty much any infection.
     
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.