AV-Comparatives - Mac Security Review/Test August 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

    Apr 21, 2007
  2. blasev

    blasev Registered Member

    Oct 25, 2010
    thanks for the heads up :thumb:

    I wish they add forticlient for mac in the review
    Last edited: Aug 22, 2013
  3. Blueshoes

    Blueshoes Registered Member

    Feb 13, 2010
    It looks as if we need to move on from the "feature review" of half of the available Mac security programs and get on to setting up a lab or very very short term malicious websites that become malicious just before the tester hits the return key and turns off seconds later to get some real malware testing. We have had this style of "feature review" the last two times from AV-Comparatives. This time was with a very small sampling of programs that are available.

    I do realize Mac malware is very very spars, and the expenditure of money for this is great, but I really think the next test has to be taken up a couple more notches and include more of the credible names that were missing on this test. I did read the paragraph about throwing some malware at each program, but I had to read it twice because I passed it by.

    Here are some of the missing,

    Avast for Mac

    Dr.Web for Mac

    Comodo for Mac

    Fortenit for Mac

    BitDefender for Mac

    ClamXav for Mac

    Panda for Mac

    TrendMicro for Mac

    Symantec iAntivirus

    Norton for Mac


    McAfee for Mac

    I can see passing some of the low end programs to save some money, but not having Avast, Dr Web suite version ( Dr Web's lab found the Flash Back malware that infected 700,000 Macs), Norton for Mac, BitDefender, Fortenit and Trend.

    Find some way to test their real-times scanners in the lab or like i said above an obscure site setup with timered Mac malware coinciding within seconds of the tester hitting the return key to go to the site the loads the malware.

    These two tests from "The Safe Mac" gave far far more incite on what programs I would want to run on my Mac then the "feature review" from

    Test 1 from The Safe Mac (AKA Reedcorner.net) had some major flaws in testing. A couple AV companies called the author of the test out for the flaws and urged him to use AMTSO standards. His part 2 test was supposedly done better, but still not up to true AV AMTSO scientific standards. Read the comments below each test because the interaction with the author is very interesting.

    My personal opinion is I couldn't get enough of "the style", "the raw info", and "the comparison" in The Safe Macs tests. Even though I know there are some flaws in testing. I feel I have a very good idea how each program performs WAY better then AV Comparatives "feature review" I just think Av-Comparitives needs to step it up a good couple of notches to get us Mac people "usable" information, not just "feature" fluff writing. I know they know how to do it right, they also know doing advanced testing on the Mac will be even MORE work then the PC testing. That is why we have the fluff "feature" article.

    I personally would rather see a AV Comparatives non scientific, non AMTSO test filled with info like The Safe Mac's test that gives us some sort of idea on Mac AV programs then the "fluff feature test". Just do the best you can and call it out that this is a non scientific test with more variable outcomes.

    The Safe Mac's tests. Check out comments and PDF links to graphs

    Test 1-- Part 1


    Part 2


    Added Note:

    Sophos Free for Mac just released Version 9.1 It has all the features of their Enterprise Mac AV that they were keeping away from us the last 2 years.

    Last edited: Aug 23, 2013
  4. SweX

    SweX Registered Member

    Apr 21, 2007
    Yeah it would have been nice to have Forti included. Though afaik as usual it is up to the vendor to tell AV-C that they would like to be included in this or that test. If I remember correctly 1-2 months ago AV-C had a note on their website telling vendors that they could submit their product if they wanted to be included in this test. But I think Forti was already aware of it only that they simply didn't want to participate in this round. :)
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.