AV-Comparatives New Test

Discussion in 'other anti-virus software' started by Baz_kasp, Sep 19, 2009.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. firzen771

    firzen771 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2007
    Posts:
    4,815
    Location:
    Canada
    ye its far from a bad product, it just seems to be a slow decline in their detection through the years. but they seem to try to compensate for it with other tools.
     
  2. Fly

    Fly Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2007
    Posts:
    2,201
    Interesting test. 'other malware' is probably mostly spyware and adware. When judging an AV I look at this category in particular.

    McAfee is something I wouldn't want on my computer. 'other malware' has dropped to less than 90 % ! A dramatic change. 'script malware' is also at less than 80 % !

    Kaspersky's results are disappointing too.
    'other malware' slightly above 90 %. Very disappointing. Some time ago I was actually considering buying the Kaspersky suite, good thing I didn't do it.

    Avira is on top, as always.

    I'm currently trialling the Avira security suite. Good product, except that the 'scan system now' on the GUI uses Avira's default heuristics settings (medium). There is a way around that, but I'd call it a bug. I'm not sure if the on-demand scan was truly tested with heuristics at 'high'. But maybe that's a difference between the suite and AntiVir Premium.
     
  3. mvdu

    mvdu Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2003
    Posts:
    1,166
    Location:
    PA
    Really shocked by Kaspersky. It's always done well in my limited tests. It was the first to point out the WeatherPulse infection, even before Prevx. Still, such a steady decline worries me. Used to be one of the best in this test, and now one of the worst. Trojans aren't even a strength anymore. I'm planning on switching to free Avast or even Comodo AV if I love CIS 4. Haven't ruled out Norton yet.

    Another observation: MSE was brought down to earth a bit. I would always use a 3rd party AV.
     
  4. Baz_kasp

    Baz_kasp Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 1, 2008
    Posts:
    593
    Location:
    London

    I know a lot of people might be disappointed with the results but AFAIK both McAfee and Kaspersky have cloud components (Artemis and KSN respectively),amongst other things which aren't (correct me if I am wrong) utilised in the test... I think they had an "off" round the last round of testing too, but they always bounce back.
     
  5. mvdu

    mvdu Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2003
    Posts:
    1,166
    Location:
    PA
    I think Artemis was tested; not sure about KSN. McAfee has been on the way up while Kaspersky has been on the way down. I hope Kaspersky gets back to the top.
     
  6. i_g

    i_g Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2006
    Posts:
    133
    The footnote clearly says Artemis was enabled - and how much lower the detection was without it.
     
  7. Baz_kasp

    Baz_kasp Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 1, 2008
    Posts:
    593
    Location:
    London
    I don't have access to the full test report here, sorry for the mistake.
     
  8. the Tester

    the Tester Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2002
    Posts:
    2,854
    Location:
    The Gateway to the Blue Hills,WI.
    Great job by Alwil for Avast's performance.:thumb:
     
  9. firzen771

    firzen771 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2007
    Posts:
    4,815
    Location:
    Canada
    cant wait to see how well Avast v5 wuld do wen its released if an old version like 4.8 does so well already :)
     
  10. nodyforever

    nodyforever Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2007
    Posts:
    549
    Location:
    PT / Lisbon
    surprise avast and F secure :) good job


    Eset down marge after test.

    Ying & Yang in product equilibrium very bad for test.
     
  11. zfactor

    zfactor Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2005
    Posts:
    6,103
    Location:
    on my zx10-r
    norton scores good as they have been recently, very nice job by fsecure and avast. and getting surprised by mcafee...
     
  12. trjam

    trjam Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2006
    Posts:
    9,102
    Location:
    North Carolina USA
    :thumb: to G-Data. Almost 100 percent.;)
     
  13. TrojanHunter

    TrojanHunter Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2007
    Posts:
    151
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    Prevention is always better than cure and Kaspersky Internet security 2010 with its sandboxing, Application control and proactive defence means it is a very powerful program at preventing infections. choosing security purely on the detection rates of an Anti-virus isn't that wise.
     
  14. trjam

    trjam Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2006
    Posts:
    9,102
    Location:
    North Carolina USA
    Totally agree. From the G-Data website, "The latest methods for detecting unknown viruses (behaviour blocking, heuristics, cloud security)."
     
  15. MrGSM

    MrGSM Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2008
    Posts:
    147
    Location:
    Morocco
    Great return for F-Secure and BitDefender... Few FP and high score...
    Congratulation ESET, i think it's gonna be the winner for BEST AV of 2009...
     
  16. Durad

    Durad Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2005
    Posts:
    594
    Location:
    Canada
    Interesting that eSafe scored good in false positive detection...
     
  17. ambient_88

    ambient_88 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2008
    Posts:
    854
    I agree with you, though detection rates are still an important part of the equation when considering the effectiveness of a (signature-based) security software.
     
  18. mvdu

    mvdu Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2003
    Posts:
    1,166
    Location:
    PA
    IMO detection shouldn't suffer at the hand of putting in more prevention measures. Remember, no weapon is 100% effective, so being strong in all areas is important to me. Even CIS, which focuses on prevention, is planing on really improving their AV for V4.
     
  19. firzen771

    firzen771 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2007
    Posts:
    4,815
    Location:
    Canada
    they also said theyd be one of the best AV's around in like a year or something who knows how long ago that was....
     
  20. BlueZannetti

    BlueZannetti Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2003
    Posts:
    6,590
    Actually, plenty of things are 100% effective, but there are secondary consequences that kick in.

    I think that if I dealt with an infestation of mice using a large thermonuclear device, it would be 100% effective with respect to the mice. I might have some explaining to do, but the mice would be gone (along with a wide swath of everything else in a radius of a number of miles...).

    That's clearly pure hyperbole as an example, but it makes the essential point very transparently - there is a point in the chase attempting to reach 100% that secondary negatives start to make an appearance. It could be performance, false positives, software conflicts for an overlayered implementation, and so on. The problem we all have is that the point of diminishing returns and increase in net negatives is not always evident and occasionally it is realized too late.

    My personal take is that something like LUA + mid-performance AV is probably more intrinsically secure than the top rated AV under an Admin level account. No, I don't have objective data to confirm that belief (although I do have some on the anecdotal side)

    Blue
     
  21. firzen771

    firzen771 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2007
    Posts:
    4,815
    Location:
    Canada
    well thats a lot of ground to make in a month lol...
     
  22. mvdu

    mvdu Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2003
    Posts:
    1,166
    Location:
    PA
    I couldn't disagree more. I wouldn't feel protected without an AV. At least without problems developing. I repeat, nothing is 100% and can fail, and I think Comodo realizes this.
     
  23. mvdu

    mvdu Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2003
    Posts:
    1,166
    Location:
    PA
    I understand, and Sandboxie is not foolproof. Might as well get the best of all the layers you can.
     
  24. mvdu

    mvdu Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2003
    Posts:
    1,166
    Location:
    PA
    Well, I'm going to continue to run AV real-time. You can't say what is best for me. I'm not trying to get you to change setups - just saying that my philosophy is valid, too. Any software can fail.
     
  25. mvdu

    mvdu Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2003
    Posts:
    1,166
    Location:
    PA
    That's why it's not useless; in any setup I think it has its place. And you don't have to run THAT many programs to get layered protection.
     
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.