AV-Comparatives (February 2009)

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

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

    Balthazor Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2007
    Posts:
    41
    I like ESET still for their top notch proactive malware detection and their still-low CPU footprint (the lowest tested in 2008, if I remember correclty.)

    Although Avira and Symantec have excellent products and I certainly considered them before renewing my ESET license this year. But proactive malware detection and low CPU footprint were the deciding factors.
     
  2. Jin K

    Jin K Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2008
    Posts:
    105

    thanks for the information

    but there is no big changes they are almost the same !!
     
  3. wibo

    wibo Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2007
    Posts:
    27
    Eset is not one of the best seems out of the rapport.

    I always had Eset on my disk and when I installed V4 I did a computer scan of all discs.
    V4 detected 5 .exe files with virus never detected by V3 in real time protection.
    At the moment of use of these .exe files (time ago) the virus were not known by Eset.
    They added it later and doing the On demand scan they were detected.

    But .... The low CPU footprint of Eset is not less important. :)
     
    Last edited: Mar 23, 2009
  4. ink

    ink Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2006
    Posts:
    185
    Most people will not take FP into account suppose regular applications are tested well by vendors, even you encounter some, just submit or add to exception as you want, so it is not a right direction to mention a lot on FP to deduct the rate, just focus on how to test the real results in combined protection environments

    I accept more than 100,000 FP in return for ~100% detection if my daily applications are not labeled as suspicious, this goes further to white-list, which means 100% detection and 100% FP, trust substitutes safety
     
    Last edited: Mar 23, 2009
  5. lodore

    lodore Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2006
    Posts:
    9,062
    fp's are not a problem as long as when yoiu send them they are fixed quickly.
    in my case the one fp I sent to KL was fixed in roughly 1 hour.
    the problem is when vendors eiether detect the same program as an fp everytime its updated or simply dont fix fp's
     
  6. NAMOR

    NAMOR Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 19, 2004
    Posts:
    1,529
    Location:
    St. Louis, MO
    About 4-5 hrs at $250/hr is what we charge. LOL. In all seriousness FP's can be a real headache too and cost a business a lot of money in downtime.
     
  7. Eice

    Eice Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2009
    Posts:
    1,413
    1. Are you kidding?
    2. If not... is that ethical and/or the standard price where you come from?
     
  8. NAMOR

    NAMOR Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 19, 2004
    Posts:
    1,529
    Location:
    St. Louis, MO

    Nope, that includes reload the entire OS on all computers, reinstalling our Point of Sale software, rebuilding their database (if needed), installing any 3rd party software,etc.
     
  9. Baz_kasp

    Baz_kasp Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 1, 2008
    Posts:
    593
    Location:
    London
    Application filtering performs a much deeper scan on all executable during first execution and catches more malware than a right click scan would, as the emulation is deeper. For example, I assumed I had an undetected sample that I wanted to send to Kaspersky. I right click scanned and nothing was detected, however when I attempted to launch it it was classified as HEUR: Worm.win32.generic and blocked from starting. With regards to any AV that has behaviour detection you can't take the % as teh final detection rate on that test set.
     
  10. virtumonde

    virtumonde Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2008
    Posts:
    504
    I'm not interested in the results just wanted to say that Baz is right ,at my work we seen it many times a threat was blocked during launch while the on demand scan showed nothing.Saved us many times.
    Also from my home PC even Avira has some Heur detections on launch.The dynamic tests when will come i would be interested to see.
     
  11. MalwareDie

    MalwareDie Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2006
    Posts:
    500
    Interesting to see eScan using the BitDefender engine now. Both G Data and eScan used to use the Kaspersky engine and now they both use the BitDefender engine. I think it's only a matter of time before F-Secure starts using the BitDefender engine as well. I think AVG's lower score is more indicative of its real-world performance. I'm still sticking with Avira, I do not find fp's very troublesome.
     
  12. JimIT

    JimIT Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2003
    Posts:
    1,035
    Location:
    Denton, Texas
    FP's are not a big issue to someone with 3-4 computers to deal with. In a network of hundreds--or thousands--of users and workstations, FP's can be a nightmare and cause havoc. As with detection rates, FP rate is an important consideration, and the two have to be balanced with performance, as well.
     
  13. Jin K

    Jin K Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2008
    Posts:
    105
    hi baz

    your definitely right ، but what if a new virus was already on my system !!
    what will the Application filtering do ?? the answer is nothing !! thats why i said KL must improve their detection rate
     
  14. Baz_kasp

    Baz_kasp Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 1, 2008
    Posts:
    593
    Location:
    London
    Technically it would scan it on first launch (aka after reboot) and block it from starting with the system :D
     
  15. Jin K

    Jin K Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2008
    Posts:
    105
    you got me there :ninja:

    but even Application filtering can’t detect everything !! and you can’t deny the fact that KL need a detection improvments
     
  16. firzen771

    firzen771 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2007
    Posts:
    4,815
    Location:
    Canada
    in that case, EVERY app could use a detection improvement :p since none are at 100% yet...
     
  17. GES/POR

    GES/POR Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2006
    Posts:
    1,490
    Location:
    Armacham
    Im pretty sure Kaspersky is working on that daily like they always done
     
  18. lodore

    lodore Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2006
    Posts:
    9,062
    Kaspersky is doing very well I dont know why you are complaining tbh.
    if malware isnt detected simply sent it to KL and it will be sorted out very fast.
     
  19. zfactor

    zfactor Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2005
    Posts:
    6,103
    Location:
    on my zx10-r
    kl has always been great about adding samples. and actually i have sent a few to symantec and they have been great about adding samples very fast. after seeing results i was considering going to normans but im not sure ill do that now... its a light and fast program but seems the detection is worse than most still
     
  20. elapsed

    elapsed Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2004
    Posts:
    7,076
    Keep in mind their new version wasn't tested, I've heart it's a lot better, but I have no experience with it myself so I can't provide you with anything useful.
     
  21. aigle

    aigle Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2005
    Posts:
    11,132
    Location:
    Saudi Arabia/ Pakistan
    Yes and they do matter even if u have a single PC if you are an ordinary user.
     
  22. trjam

    trjam Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2006
    Posts:
    9,102
    Location:
    North Carolina USA
    Again agree my friend. But look at the distinction in how they are rated. Based on what you are saying, one false positive is one to many.
     
  23. MalwareDie

    MalwareDie Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2006
    Posts:
    500
    The products that did not far as well this time are AVG, Norman, and Trustport (not surprising since Trustport uses both AVG and Norman).

    Kingsoft Antivirus was a surprise. It nearly got the required 87%. Maybe it will do better next time.
     
  24. JerryM

    JerryM Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2003
    Posts:
    4,299
    Two AVs surprised me; McAfee, and F-Secure.

    F-Secure has been one of my favorites, although I have not used it since I got the three year freebie for Kaspersky from Systweak that is good until 4/28/2010. Thanks trjam for the second one.:thumb:

    I do wonder why the detection rate has gone down to such an extent. I see no reason that it should be different from Kaspersky.

    My other favorite is Avast, and it is doing well at detection. I must admit that FPs might be somewhat of a problem for me. I have not had one with Kaspersky.

    Good job, and I like the new format.

    Regards,
    Jerry
     
  25. trjam

    trjam Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2006
    Posts:
    9,102
    Location:
    North Carolina USA
    thanks Jerry, trust me, F-Secures AV is still one of the best. I love it, especially since I can still get it for about $7.00.;)
     
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.