av-comparatives news

true but im happy for the little guy to win lol

 

keep in mind that with 96,57% regarding the trojans, NAV missed ~4000 trojans.

 

rofl. how many trojans did antivir miss?

 

You can see that on the site

 

IBK,

Do you will make another Anti-Trojan Comparative in the future?

Regards

 

Yes, that is a point that is frequently missed. We aren't talking about 100's of malware on the web where even a 'Percentage' might now make much of a difference. But with 100's of 1000's the reality, a percentage point is a huge difference!.

 

I have read concerns about poor spyware/ adware detection by free edition of Antivir but personally with very few test files I ever used Antivir detected most of them instantly. So I am sure if someone is not putting his nose everywhere on net, he might get a substantial protection against spywares/ adwares even with the free version.

 

No, it's not.

Blue

 

How much is Gdate US DOLLARS?

 

and by this way u can help improve the heuristic detection even further.

 

yup thats why i surgested it and i hope i can persuade my dad to get it for th desktop sure f-secure is good but antivir is lighter.

 

I am interested too but will like to have BOClean included too, may be a real time anti-trojan test.

 

IBK only make on-demand tests, at least until now...

 

Oooookay!.

 

tobacco,

To me it's a simple question of viewing the results with some measure of internal consistency. If a "percentage" difference is a huge gap for Norton, why wouldn't KAV lagging Avira/AVK by roughly a half of a percentage not be a substantial gap as well? Is 99% really awesome? There's that huge 1% difference again, but now it's from absolute perfection. I'm quoting the non-DOS containing results in all cases since, frankly, they're the ones that matter.

It should either matter or not matter in both cases. Personally, I believe most of the commentary revolves around inconsequential differences and I think you had it right in your initial post - 99% is awesome, as is 98%, and arguably a couple of steps down. These are awesome numbers for KAV and the other products in that upper tier.

It is useful to bear in mind that in these types of challenge tests it is very easy to read too much into the numbers. While it is interesting to delve into the details, I do it myself, I also try to keep a loose sense of that unfortunately very vague boundary between consequential and inconsequential differences. I do admit that boundary is somewhat obscure and probably unique to each of us.

Cheers,

Blue

 

Blue

I'm not going to object to what your saying. It has it's merits. I try to look at things in the worst case scenario, that is the unsafe surfer whether intentional or not. And the percentages can and will come into play here since the user thinks he is protected. A very careful user shouldn't have to worry very much based on a few percentage points. As for Kaspersky, this was a signature test and based on their frequency of updating, don't think they have Anything to worry about. Some of the others on the other hand.......Well.........!.

 

It seems that August test results (including overview and reports) have been removed from the website. What's going on

No problem now.

 

I am not having trouble seeing those results. Maybe a short glitch.

Jerry

 

They had disappeared for me too. It was weird.

 

IBK,
good to hear from you regarding mcafee's fall in detection rates.could you elaborate about what made it loose so much ground.
also,is it something to worry about for mcafee users??

 

As far as I know Mcafee is still great detection. It's just that the product is bloated.

I wouldn't be too worried because IMO even if it went down, it should go back up.

 

Are you sure? What about when IBK did a test on Kaspersky's Proactive Protection module (found in v.6 of their antivirus)?

Anyway, a big test of real-time monitors with tens of thousands of samples will probably be very exhaustive and extremely time-consuming.

 

thanks for your view.well does anyone know if avira premium with firewall is still in beta?

 

yeah, it is still in beta.

 

Interesting results, thanks IBK.

I'd be interested to know how much of AntiVir's detection was by heuristics and how much was signature based. AntiVir scored a high detection rate in the Proactive test, but the amount of FPs was 'many'. Having said that, Dr Web also scored quite well in the proactive test, again with 'many' FPs, but it didn't do too well in the on-demand test.

the test also highlights how little the number of signatures in the database matters in terms of detection: E.G. Norton (72,713) scored much higher than F-Prot (313,50).