AV-Comparatives: File Detection Test March 2015

Discussion in 'other anti-virus software' started by anon, Apr 15, 2015.

  1. anon

    anon Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2012
    Posts:
    4,087
    Last edited: Apr 15, 2015
  2. Rompin Raider

    Rompin Raider Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2010
    Posts:
    1,228
    Location:
    North Texas
    Thanks for posting anon!
     
  3. zfactor

    zfactor Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2005
    Posts:
    6,012
    Location:
    on my zx10-r
    wow wonder what happened to trend this time.
     
  4. Mayahana

    Mayahana Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2014
    Posts:
    2,220
    Yeah crazy.. It's almost like part of Trend wasn't working for the test.. Like it failed to access their fingerprinting engine on the TDS network? Strange results from AVC lately overall though with multiple products,wonder what's up? :isay:

    I don't buy the Kaspersky 100% detection kool aid, and never will. It just doesn't perform for us nearly as well as it seems to magically do in these tests.
     
  5. Osaban

    Osaban Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2005
    Posts:
    4,215
    Avira did well but too many FPs, I wonder what happened as I've never experienced one single FP for at least 5 years...
     
  6. Minimalist

    Minimalist Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2014
    Posts:
    5,057
    Nice results from Kaspersky :thumb:
     
  7. Mortal Raptor

    Mortal Raptor Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2014
    Posts:
    1,013
    I think Kaspersky's engineers master this test to get 100%. Funny that I have seen many infected machines that I get to repair all having Kaspersky on them and I wonder, whatever happened to the 100% detection rates I always see and 0 FPs? A little bit too good to be true heh?
     
  8. Eggnog

    Eggnog Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2012
    Posts:
    94
    Location:
    United States
    My thought, as well.
     
  9. smallav

    smallav Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2006
    Posts:
    17
    Qihoo's special 'AV-C version' hxxp://down.sd.360.cn/360sd/360sd_5.0.0.5104X64_en.exe. I found this from AV-C's test report. It's very difficult to completely download even for Chinese people.

    NO QVM engine, strange version, any other difference?
     
  10. Infected

    Infected Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2015
    Posts:
    665
    Does it say this was sponsored?
     
  11. smallav

    smallav Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2006
    Posts:
    17
    I am not sure, but seems AV-C knew something.

    'Notes: The Chinese vendors Baidu and Qihoo decided to participate with their respective English products, which engines and settings are different from the Chinese language products. Baidu decided to participate with their English language Baidu Antivirus (Enhanced Version) (http://sadu.baidu.com/en/) which is based on the Avira engine instead of the Kaspersky engine. Qihoo participated with their 360 Antivirus (English) (http://sd.360.cn/download_center.html) which uses the Bitdefender engine but no QVM engine. Quick Heal participated with their Total Security product version which is based on the Bitdefender engine and their in-house engine, while their other products are based only on their in-house engine. Therefore, the results of this test apply only to the tested products and not to any other products on any official website of these vendors. '
     
  12. Mayahana

    Mayahana Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2014
    Posts:
    2,220
    Kaspersky has a team dedicated to 'passing' tests according to what I have read.

    Also, it's pretty clear some of the Chinese vendors tried to 'game' the test based on what SmallAV posted below.. That is - the products tested by AVC aren't the products you will download from their official websites. I wonder if AVC masks their LAN and WAN when running tests? It would be pretty easy to put code into a product to 'detect' when it's being tested, and make special considerations that may 'assist' in detection's. It's not rocket science. If the Chinese vendors are 'aware' of the test, and providing 'tailored' products, then you don't think other firms are? If that's the case, then why doesn't AVC simply download public versions from the website like anyone else - without notifying vendors - and then test them?

    This is why I pay more mind to my own tests, our lab tests, and even some youtube tests. I think they represent the 'real' situation better.
     
  13. Mortal Raptor

    Mortal Raptor Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2014
    Posts:
    1,013
    Surprising! and I always trusted AVC! From what you said above, their tests should be taken with a grain of salt and it seems they are only interested in advertising those products as they pay them anyway to be tested!
     
  14. StillBorn

    StillBorn Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2014
    Posts:
    156
    Should AVC ever catch wind of this post, their reply will be fascinating to say the least. The show must go on...
     
  15. Mortal Raptor

    Mortal Raptor Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2014
    Posts:
    1,013
    LOL I know, they always come up with perfect explanations to hide the truth, they are no more than an ad agency to me after what Mayahana said.....

    so who's tests can we trust now? Dennis or AV-TEST? I kinda feel AV-TEST is the same....... as their performance portion of their tests have nothing to do with real life......Kaspersky/McAfee/Bitdefender always getting full 6/6 in the performance department! yeahhhh right........ the heaviest solutions I've ever tried in my life on my machine and others' machines...... the moment you uninstall any of the above 3 it's like you just bought a new laptop or upgraded it from an HDD to an SSD speedwise that is
     
  16. StillBorn

    StillBorn Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2014
    Posts:
    156
    Well, languy99 is back in action on youtube so maybe he can set the record straight on some of these so-called top tier vendors... :argh:

    Edit: His reviews aren't actually all that bad in contrast with the myriad of wanna be hall of flame youtubers out there for sure.
     
    Last edited: Apr 15, 2015
  17. Lagavulin16

    Lagavulin16 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2014
    Posts:
    83
    Location:
    Emerald City
    Just wondering if Microsoft actually pays to have these consistently deplorable test results published with every known testing agency. And if so, why continue the charade? It's kind of like waving a red flag saying you MUST replace this app with a 3rd party alternative ASAP to stay reasonably protected. MS obviously has absolutely no interest in being competitive in this arena, so I don't get their point in actively publicizing that fact.
     
  18. smallav

    smallav Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2006
    Posts:
    17
    Qihoo's another version so called their 'QVM Version' got full score 18 points in AV-Test's tests, no any false positives. It's crazy. :)

    Same question, who's tests can we trust now?
     
  19. smallav

    smallav Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2006
    Posts:
    17
    Indeed we can download this special version from Qihoo's official website, BUT, they placed it on their Chinese language website though they have their official English language website, AND, they limited the download speed, you may need two or three days to finish the download. You can get higher download speed about 20-30K/s at the beginning of the download, when you got 90%+ of this install package, you will get download speed about 0.1K/s, also you may lost your connection.

    From this point, yes, for AV-C, it's public version.

    360b.JPG

    Click [English] you will download 360sd_5.0.0.5104X64_en.exe directly.
     
  20. Mayahana

    Mayahana Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2014
    Posts:
    2,220
    Certainly not this one.. I guess this sort of ends a longstanding debate, and possibly vindicates companies like Symantec that don't play along with it.
     
  21. Frank the Perv

    Frank the Perv Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2005
    Posts:
    882
    Location:
    Virginia, USA
    Yeah, I noticed that too. But like many, the ascension line may not be straight up. Trend in the recent cumulative AV-C test showed decisive results over multiple tests.


    ~ Comments have been removed so as to not restart the back and forth complaints and post reporting ~


    Eugene K. himself admitted to this. But that does not take away from their decade of test domination. It's just too bad I could not implement it on my machine.. the most important 'real world' test.


    And AVC is still the best. All the other testers have more and greater outliers in their testing. I've been watching this carefully for about a decade. And AV-C comes closest to what I have seen in some non-published government testing. Andreas is the best in the business as far as I can tell. Although.... that certainly does not make every test perfect..


    Yeah.... I've wondered that too.


    Yes, downloading those dirty Qihoo backdoors can take some time.




    -Frank
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 16, 2015
  22. Osaban

    Osaban Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2005
    Posts:
    4,215
    'Symantec doesn't play along with it', 'Trustport doesn't play along with it' (as a matter of fact they've changed their misleading introduction on their website), Trend Micro didn't do well at all, so your conclusion is AV Comparatives cannot be trusted, don't you think there is a bit of arrogance in your statements?

    I find AV Comparatives is arguably the most reliable testing organization at the moment and not because Avira is doing fine, they supply more information about their tests than any competitor, and as far as I know all companies have to pay to be tested. Kasperky has been doing fine everywhere, if it doesn't play well in your tests, why should I take your word for it? I think you are barking up the wrong tree.
     
  23. Frank the Perv

    Frank the Perv Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2005
    Posts:
    882
    Location:
    Virginia, USA
    Really.... we at Wilders can take full credit for that. I alerted Andreas at AV-C after noting the less-than-candid verbiage.

    You can still get to the page... but you're right, it does not seem that you can click your way there.... unless I didn't click around enough.

    http://www.trustport.com/en/news/tr...e-most-effective-methods-of-malware-detection
     
  24. smallav

    smallav Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2006
    Posts:
    17
    I agree with you. That's why we discuss it. We need AV-C, we need independent fair test organization. AV-C should do something to stop liar.
     
  25. Osaban

    Osaban Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2005
    Posts:
    4,215
    Yes it is true that page still exists. When I google Trustport I get:
    http://www.trustport.com/en/products/home
     
Loading...