AV-Comparatives New Test

Which engines does F-Secure contain?

 

Bitdefender and their own in-house engine i believe.

 

I am not sure this is wise since that category includes only 1.8% of the test bed. No idea what it's composed of.

 

Being "one of the worst of the best" isn't too bad. And also you must take into account that Kaspersky added alot of module to their suite that do not rely on signature scanning(Hips and all) so I wouldn't be worried at all for Kaspersky users.

 

Re: AV Comparatives

Yearly release is indeed a cash cow scheme, many times the engine is the same as the previous year version(who also got updated through it's regular updates).

I hope one day they go back to releasing new version only when they add new modules or other significant thing, but that will happen when they close their marketing department(i.e. never)

 

Hi,

Thank you Lord I don't use the information provided by AV-Comparatives.org to decide which AV to run on my computers.

I use what I think works best on my configurations (Vista SP-2).

Regards,

Carlos

 

KIS is also an HIPS, I would not be too worried.

 

This is how I feel, and actually, it's detection is higher than the previous test. 90% now compared to 87% in February, but I have a feeling it will shine again on the proactive test.

 

it is good point but many other Av has their own technology.
Bitdefender has good proactive protection, i tested with many missed malware, its proactive protection stopped them.
but some ones cant be stopped.

i think kaspersky is not populer too much
avira is new star in my country.

 

Kaspersky has always been an excellent AV, and it remains so.
However, if one is searching for an AV or suite I would go for the one with higher detection rates assuming it ran well on my system.

Since I have licenses for both Avira, and F-Secure in addition to Kaspersky I will probably switch to Avira. All three and Avast run well on both my machines. I am currently trying the trial version.

I admit to some disappointment that Kaspersky did not do better.

Regards,
Jerry

 

so wen does the proactive test get released?

 

It's usually out a couple of months after the on-demand testing is done.

 

thx

 

Re: AV Comparatives

LOL. No one said that BD sucks. BD is has really good engine and detection rate. If you are following AV-Comparatives with years or you can easily browse the archive you will notice that BD has been constant over the years.
In Proactive Test's always has been above 40 % and has been one of few top tiers in that tests after Avira and G-data.
Also in On-demand tests has constant detection rate.
But the fact remains that BD has to be polished. It has too many bugs.
What use of product (any product, in this case AV or some other security product) even if it's has 99.9999% detection rate (or even 100% ) and it light and everything best, but the product stops to work after couple of minutes. And imagine that you are away from PC and connected to internet and you AV stops to work and you're not protected in any way?

Blue has some really good points about detection rate of products and usability of products.

Very good point ! But if someone can understand and apply that to real world that it would be great.

 

From the report:

McAfee in the test has 98.7% detection rate.

Huge difference IMHO.
From 3-rd place McAfee, it will be in 12 place without internet connection. That's automatically McAfee going from top-tier in the last places.
I'm just summarize the results (and i'm not bashing McAfee). I don't want to start flame war and everyone can make it's own opinion and final conclusion.

 

Yes indeed.
While in the past were same as AVG in performance, and sometimes Avast was better by few % then AVG, in the next test AVG was better that Avast by few %. And this was going for years.
But now seems that Alwil are making good job. And also is inedible that AVG has been stopped at some boundary.

 

@IBK: Next time you compile a report, could you please either make the link to the extra FP summary PDF either clickable or copyable?

Manually typing that URL is a bit bothersome...

Also, why isn't there a link to it on the page itself (or did I miss it?)? The PDF will be missed by many I guess, and does provide some insights on the 'personal relevance' of these FPs.

As the URL is not reachable via your website, I guess providing a link is OK to save others in here the work I can remove it if you want to.

av-comparatives.org ~ Direct Link to PDF Removed as per AV-Comparatives Request ~

 

its ok. i will look to have it maybe linked on the website.
in the meantime: http://www.av-comparatives.org/images/stories/test/fp/avc_report23_fp.pdf

 

I may have placed the wrong link here, anyway, it has been removed by staff.
@IBK: thanks for providing the correct link in here and adding it to the website soon

 

btw, the link in the PDF _is_ clickable (I just checked).

 

With Foxit PDF Reader on Default settings it does not work.

I've now looked for some option that might amend that, and if i tell Foxit to "Create Links from URLs" it does work.

No idea whether that is done automagically by other PDF Viewers, or if not enabling this setting causes Foxit to effectively disable links in the document.

 

Using Foxit here,the pdf link in IBK's post works for me,using the default settings.

 

foxit works here also

 

foxit works fine for me.

 

Hmmm.... guess I wasn't running on default after all then and couldn't remember deactivating that setting...