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. NobleT

    NobleT Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2009
    Posts:
    58
    waiting for serveral months:D
    so i found norman is worst.it is not very surprised .i just hope norman can released new version as soon as possible and to reduce its products's price because the overall performance is not worth 59.95$ and 49.95%
     
  2. Graystoke

    Graystoke Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2003
    Posts:
    1,506
    Location:
    The San Joaquin Valley, California
    After it's GUI being called "girlie boy" in another thread here in the forum, it's good to see Bitdefender 2010 did very well. I guess it's true, the GUI really doesn't matter all that much. ;) :) Good work BD. :thumb:
     
  3. BlueZannetti

    BlueZannetti Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2003
    Posts:
    6,590
    That's really not true under some specific circumstances. I outlined my own take in Securing Your PC and Data, specifically the post on Approaches to maintaining a clean system.

    If you ever download an application from the Internet, you need to come to grips with how you ascertain fidelity of the file. Some of that can be fairly trivial and based on a site oriented level of trust. However, that's unlikely to cover all eventualities. It is really in this respect that AV's have a significant role for almost all Windows users.

    Obviously, if you never download and run executable content from sites that are not known to you, the point may be moot. However, many folks remain at risk by purposely executing files with either a questionable or unknown pedigree. Approaches such as LUA and so on cannot handle this situation. It is for this type of circumstance that an AV remains a valuable asset.

    Blue
     
  4. BlueZannetti

    BlueZannetti Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2003
    Posts:
    6,590
    Maybe. You're making a lot of assumptions here. The situation I'm talking about is when that downloaded program is basically treated the same as a retail boxed application on a CD purchased from a store.

    LUA/SRP/etc are powerful measures, but so are users with physical access to a machine and a desire to install something.

    Blue
     
  5. BlueZannetti

    BlueZannetti Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2003
    Posts:
    6,590
    When I consider the trade-off on real time vs. a pure on-demand approach, I tend to favor retaining a real time based scheme simply to remove the need for an active user based decision to be made on-the-fly.

    With sufficient discipline, the two approaches are effectively equivalent. I simply see that "requiring a sufficient level of discipline" to be something difficult to maintain over the long haul.

    Blue
     
    Last edited: Sep 19, 2009
  6. cqpreson

    cqpreson Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2009
    Posts:
    348
    Location:
    China
    Using AVs is a remark measure.It just can detect and kill the virus which is well-known and outmoded.

    If AVs have HIPS,it will be better.
     
  7. It's okay to test detection. But that is only one layer of one's security, Testing 25 year old technology isn't really reliable anymore, infection is spreading faster then ever.

    I am highly interested in amtso complaint testing! Testing products like CIS whom use PREVENTION as their first line of defense and not DETECTION is the way to go.

    http://www.amtso.org/

    On a a side note: Looking forward to CIS v4. But more so, Amtso testing and not just testing detection of a product. Hope we can see this standard soon.
     
  8. cqpreson

    cqpreson Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2009
    Posts:
    348
    Location:
    China
    Why does CIS improve so fast?Its Antivirus module released not long ago.
     
  9. ronjor

    ronjor Global Moderator

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2003
    Posts:
    121,031
    Location:
    Texas
    I don't see CIS in the latest AV-Comparatives test. Let's stay on topic.
     
  10. mvdu

    mvdu Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2003
    Posts:
    1,166
    Location:
    PA
    In my opinion, running Avira real time is NOT useless. You can use your setup, and I'll use mine. It's not worth discussing further.
     
  11. Sjoeii

    Sjoeii Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2006
    Posts:
    1,240
    Location:
    52?18'51.59"N + 4?56'32.13"O
    That's correct.
    Please don't worry about Kaspersky. Did it ever fail on you?
    Offcourse this is a well respected test but please don't judge a vendor on a test. Try for yourself and see what one can do for you
     
  12. MalwareDie

    MalwareDie Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2006
    Posts:
    500
    Am I wrong in assuming that eScan and F-Secure use the BitDefender engine? I used to know but have since forgotten. The numbers are very similar and it makes sense to me.
     
  13. Osaban

    Osaban Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2005
    Posts:
    5,362
    Location:
    Milan and Seoul
    My Avira Premium license was due for renewal in 20 days and I was waiting for this test to decide whether to extend it for another year: it is amazing how consistent this company has been in the last 3 years in terms of high detection. I renewed it but I was a bit disappointed I didn't get the 10 months bonus advertised on their site; it is only when one buys a new license.
     
  14. smage

    smage Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2008
    Posts:
    378
    I wonder whether rogue/fake AVs have been included under the "other malware" category.
    Otherwise the test would neglect a very important aspect given that so many users are being infected by this kind of threat these days.
     
    Last edited: Sep 20, 2009
  15. Macstorm

    Macstorm Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2005
    Posts:
    2,641
    Location:
    Sneffels volcano
    1. Just curious, I'd like to know what MSE users think about this test...

    2. Except for the highly dubious (IMHO) method of rate the number of false positives found in the test (of which depends largely for the final award of the product), I think I still like the AV-Comparatives tests anyway:

    99,4% is a good reason for this ;)
     
  16. iwod

    iwod Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2004
    Posts:
    708
    I was expecting lower FP from Symantec. But it is still just within Advanced+ range so i am OK with that.

    I think it is the best balanced AV on the market.
     
  17. vijayind

    vijayind Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2008
    Posts:
    1,413
    The real winner here is BitDefender almost all top rankers use its engine (GData,F-Secure,eScan). Now if only Softwin would make BD a bit leaner ....

    Is it too early to say that, BD is the new KL :doubt:
     
  18. RejZoR

    RejZoR Lurker

    Joined:
    May 31, 2004
    Posts:
    6,426
    Re: AV Comparatives

    Trust me, you don't want the crappy yearly numbering scheme. Because thats then just a lame excuse to add some crappy features, some GUI touch up and release the new version again (McAfee does that, while Symantec improved a bit regarding this). Instead avast! is releasing new version numbers as needed (being at version 4.x for years). And now releasing version 5.x without any connection to year numbers. Higher version number means it's a better program and doesn't care for what year it is.
     
  19. iwod

    iwod Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2004
    Posts:
    708
    Oh... I forgot to mention
    This is like the first time Kaspersky get a score below Advanced + in on demand test ever since AV Comparatives started.
     
  20. iwod

    iwod Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2004
    Posts:
    708
    Re: AV Comparatives


    Well yes, but the thing is, Symantec allows you to upgrade from 2009 to 2010 or what ever year as long as you are still within your subscription period.

    So i dont see a problem with that.
     
  21. TrojanHunter

    TrojanHunter Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2007
    Posts:
    151
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    I agree, there are some people who just look at the Anti-virus detection score on a given test, but don't consider what the vendor is offering as a whole.
     
  22. Sjoeii

    Sjoeii Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2006
    Posts:
    1,240
    Location:
    52?18'51.59"N + 4?56'32.13"O
    Exactly what I meant
     
  23. Osaban

    Osaban Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2005
    Posts:
    5,362
    Location:
    Milan and Seoul
    As a matter of fact I was just about to go with MSE (I like Avira a lot, but no loyalty whatsoever) but Avira's detection is always on top and as far as I'm concerned that's all I expect from an AV.

    It isn't clear yet whether MS One Care was tested as most of the others or there was some kind of 'in the cloud' interaction, certainly its performance is disappointing compared to the last test. Perhaps it is still too early, MSE is still a beta version and it's not fair to pass judgement at this stage.
     
  24. firzen771

    firzen771 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2007
    Posts:
    4,815
    Location:
    Canada
    Re: AV Comparatives

    o i agree with u, i just didnt know the version numbers of the programs that go by years so i was asking what year version those products were, since avast is version format i can tell which it is.
     
  25. fce

    fce Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2007
    Posts:
    758
    ....and KIS go down :eek:

    i won't change my security though, it's working execellent in my PC for almost 3years now, why waste time.

    hey KL, tell your programmer stop taking too many vacation leave! :D
     
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.