AV-Comparatives - Heuristic/Behaviour Test March 2013

Discussion in 'other anti-virus software' started by SweX, Aug 21, 2013.

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

    SweX Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2007
    Posts:
    6,429
  2. J_L

    J_L Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2009
    Posts:
    8,516
    I don't see why user-dependant and false positives should count so negatively in a test like this.
     
  3. Frank the Perv

    Frank the Perv Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2005
    Posts:
    882
    Location:
    Virginia, USA
    For knowledgeable users, Emsisoft wins.

    Congrats to the usual high performers, Bitdefender, Kaspersky, & Emsisoft.
     
  4. Brandonn2010

    Brandonn2010 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2011
    Posts:
    1,849
    Wow, very surprised Avast! was almost last considering it was version 8...
     
  5. oliverjia

    oliverjia Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2005
    Posts:
    1,517
    It's the position it has always been at. I am just surprised why so many ppl insist using Avast. probably because it uses fancy terms in version 8, lol.

     
  6. anon

    anon Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2012
    Posts:
    4,094
    Last edited: Aug 21, 2013
  7. RejZoR

    RejZoR Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2004
    Posts:
    6,426
    Sorry to break your hate fun, but wtf? I'm not going to say i'm defending avast! here but if you look at scores of others it's overall wtf. It just makes much no sense at all.

    And if i go to the avast! defending territory, NOT a single user dependend detection? I call that absolute nonsense because if the samples were really THAT new to avoid all the signatures and heuristics, there would be quite a few "low reputation file" warnings. And i'm pretty sure there should be at least few AutoSandbox detections or notifications. But they are displaying it as there was not a single such detection which is imo just plain impossible.
     
  8. vlk

    vlk AV Expert

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2002
    Posts:
    618
    With 3 months old definitions and no cloud access?
    Yes it doesn't work very well under such circumstances.
     
  9. IBK

    IBK AV Expert

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2003
    Posts:
    1,819
    Location:
    Innsbruck (Austria)
    @VLK: read the report. it is not 3-MONTH OLD DEFS, it is max 1 day old defs.
     
  10. vlk

    vlk AV Expert

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2002
    Posts:
    618
    Sorry I didn't see that in the report (and I don't see it even now, after reading the report once more - but if you say so then OK)...

    So you changed the methodology this time?
     
  11. RejZoR

    RejZoR Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2004
    Posts:
    6,426
    Well, then that makes it even weirder... i mean, c'mon, as bad as MSE? Just doesn't seem like a logical thing to observe considering MSE doesn't have a single proactive feature and avast! has several.
     
  12. IBK

    IBK AV Expert

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2003
    Posts:
    1,819
    Location:
    Innsbruck (Austria)
    The methodology you refer to (3 months etc.) has been changed already years ago ;).
    From 2004 to 2006 the time-frame was was 3 months.
    In 2007 the time-frame was was 2 months.
    In 2008 the time-frame was was 1 month.
    In 2009 the time-frame was already shortened down to 1 week.
    Since 2012 it is 1 day.
     
  13. oliverjia

    oliverjia Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2005
    Posts:
    1,517
    it has several proactive features, in other words, fancy terms. That's what I was talking about. You don't need several such features, one is enough as long as it works well.
    I don't hate Avast. I don't hate any AV products. I just speak based on reputable test results, aka, objective facts in my opinion; other than relying on subjective impression.

     
  14. RejZoR

    RejZoR Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2004
    Posts:
    6,426
    Well, i know what i've seen avast! do with its additional security features in teh past and not seing any being used here makes no sense at all.
     
  15. Fabian Wosar

    Fabian Wosar Developer

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2010
    Posts:
    787
    Location:
    Germany
    Well, I can see a reason for user-dependant not being equal to full automatic block. I just don't see the reason why you get punished twice for essentially the same false positives. Or why, in a heuristic and behavior test, signature based false positives count at all. They did do a heuristic/behavior blocker based false positive tests by installing and running 100 commonly used applications, which yielded no false positives for any product.

    Anyways, 3 misses. 2 of which were already fixed at the time we got the test results and one of which was a case where we missed a reference during cleaning. That's not too bad. We most certainly have to work on the user-dependency though.
     
  16. true indian

    true indian Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2012
    Posts:
    753
    Location:
    india
    I dont understand why people complain on these type of tests,who uses a AV outdated by weeks by the way?? if you dont have internet,you stand no chance.Any tests in today's scenario is pointless in my opinion because of the influx of malware coming out everyday and plus somethings dont match real world and I agree with RejZor about not having a single user dependent ones out of those missed samples. :rolleyes:

    oliverjia,you can stop here...no need to manipulate fantasy words and proactive features as one,they are different things for sure,we arent that dumb to spot a wisely edited hatred type of post,I dont know why people hate free security softwares so much,its just antivirus programs anyways isnt it!? :D

    Still,who uses a AV without up to date sigs?? its pointless to me anyways,real world is somehow much important but again there are flaws in every test.

    As I said,any test is pointless these days.
    >no own experience >quoting commercial testers >2013
     
  17. blasev

    blasev Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2010
    Posts:
    763
    again, congrats forticlient for advanced+ :D :thumb:
     
  18. guest

    guest Guest

    result isnt suprise.

    Bitdefender has Active Virus Control, it is very powerfull, fully automatic and far from False Positives. Very impressive technology.
    It has B-have emulation but i didnt find more detailed information about this tech. There is white paper but it is old. It looks like F-secure's deep guard. I dont know BD based Av's has this ability (Emsisoft for example)
    This techs make it very solid product. I believe, Bitdefender's own software is better than all other BD engine based software. (except eam) It earn all awards this year.

    Eam is another success story. Thanks to new AV-comparatives test, We know now, EAM has very good Proactive Dedection.

    Eset has very good signature dedection but it hasnt got Proactive Dedection. It has HIPS but only advanced user can use it. This is too bad for them, They doesnt show as their potantial.
     
  19. Nightwalker

    Nightwalker Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2008
    Posts:
    784
    Emsisoft is amazing :thumb:


    Kudos to Bitdefender and Kaspersky for solid results.
     
  20. Fabian Wosar

    Fabian Wosar Developer

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2010
    Posts:
    787
    Location:
    Germany
    It's nothing like that actually. Deep Guard is F-Secure's equivalent to Bitdefender's AVC.

    All of them do. B-have is just an extended emulator and part of the scan engine.
     
  21. oliverjia

    oliverjia Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2005
    Posts:
    1,517
    I don't understand your logic. From where you see that I hate free security softwares? It has nothing to do with free or non-free.

    And my answer to your implication: no, I don't work for any av company and I am not in security industry.

     
  22. FreddyFreeloader

    FreddyFreeloader Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2013
    Posts:
    527
    Location:
    Tejas
    From what I've seen in several tests lately, Avast's behaviour blocker is much improved in version 8.
    What is important to me is financial, banking, shopping protection. I can always re-image the computer, but can't re-image my bank account.
     
  23. harsha_mic

    harsha_mic Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2009
    Posts:
    791
    Location:
    India
    IBK,

    Any chance that you would be using Win 8/Win 8.1 machine with Smart Screen as the baseline metrix for these kind of tests (real world, behavior tests) in near future.

    Thanks,
    Harsha.
     
  24. guest

    guest Guest

    I just read f-secure whitepaper;
    http://campaigns.f-secure.com/software-updater/deepguard_whitepaper_final.pdf
    It looks emulator+cloud+BB

    B-HAVE+AVC=Deep Guard.
    I dont know BD has cloud check. It sent sample user computer to BD server, if they need but I dont have info about realtime cloud check.

    There are information about B-have;
    http://encribd.com/read-file/bhave-the-road-to-success-bitdefender-pdf-1379165/

    Like your words, it is emulator. If all BD based software using this tech, AVC is more powerfull then i think.
     
  25. spywar

    spywar Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2012
    Posts:
    583
    Location:
    Paris
    There is nothing like cloud lookup/real time analysis with cloud based servers on Bitdefender.
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.