Av-Comparatives: On-Demand Comparative August 2010

Discussion in 'other anti-virus software' started by hckyo, Sep 23, 2010.

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

    guest Guest

    Because some people asked, maybe I shouldn't reply.

    If the only professionals are AVC... I dont consider PCSL, virusinfo, virus.gr, AM test lab... amateurs


    July 2010: http://www.pcsecuritylabs.net/document/report/PCSL_Total_Protection_Test_July_2010_EN.pdf "Dynamic TEST" inactive malware files not removed by the sandbox are consider a FAIL.
    Feb 2010: http://virusinfo.info/index.php?page=testseng
    Feb 2010:http://www.anti-malware-test.com/?q=node/93/
    Sep 2009:http://www.virus.gr/portal/en/content/2009-08,-10-august-05-september
    ...



    So my point is if the AV component, the part that supposedly Melih does not care, have been tested by "professional" groups at least 3 times in one year, if CIS does not have more dynamic test (the kind of test that supposedly Melih wants to participate) is not because they have tried to avoid it.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 24, 2010
  2. CogitoTesting

    CogitoTesting Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2009
    Posts:
    901
    Location:
    Sea of Tranquility, Luna
    If you believe Melih consequently you must believe in myth. He always said in one his forum threads that he is waiting for an AMTSO approved test so that he can allow CIS to be tested. However, he turned around and took credit for non AMTSO approved tests to show-off, sort of; just like your references. Melih would have rejected them by saying these tests are non AMTSO approved. The facts are on my side here, please go to Melih's forums and behold his own words.

    In short, Melih does not want CIS to be tested and he never will; excuses are his forte. Case in point he challenged Symantec and Symantec replied to him by saying get yourself tested and I would say AV-Comparatives would have been a perfect opportunity. And yet the only pathetic excuse he could come up with now was that detection is not important blah blah blah. :argh:.

    Thanks.
     
    Last edited: Sep 24, 2010
  3. guest

    guest Guest

    There are facts, 4 test at least in a year (3 on demand, 1 dynamic, maybe there are even more), then we have you saying that Melih is trying to hide his product from the testers... well he must be doing it quite bad.

    I already explained you why CIS is not in the public dynamic test, is even written in the report.
     
  4. CogitoTesting

    CogitoTesting Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2009
    Posts:
    901
    Location:
    Sea of Tranquility, Luna
    You are a good human being bellgamin. :thumb:

    Thanks.
     
  5. guest

    guest Guest

  6. CogitoTesting

    CogitoTesting Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2009
    Posts:
    901
    Location:
    Sea of Tranquility, Luna
    Did you read the threads I told you about. Please go to Comdo forums and read and weep. :'(.

    P.S: Until you read these threads I do not think it will be fair to logic to reply to your posts anymore. With all due respect, of course.


    Thanks.
     
  7. guest

    guest Guest

    Yes, we have facts against what you are saying posted here, and threads hide and lost in Comodo forums.

    Even if is written the facts posted here says that is not true since a year ago or even more.
    You can stay anchored in the past if you want and dont reply me about this issue.
     
  8. IBK

    IBK AV Expert

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2003
    Posts:
    1,875
    Location:
    Innsbruck (Austria)
    p.s. "dynamic testing" by PCSL is a "behavioral test" (double-clicking malware which was not detected on-demand) and not dynamic as done by AVC/AV-Test/Dennis/etc.
     
  9. guest

    guest Guest

    Yes, you are right, I wrote it btw parenthesis because I didnt know how to call it exactly, I have should explain why.

    Anyway the point again is: If CIS have never been tested in any dynamic test (what Melih wants) and it's tested in many on-demand tests by professionals (what Melih does not care) somebody is not saying the truth, about if comodo is avoiding their product to be tested.

    After all this we should really try to come back to the topic "Av-Comparatives: On-Demand Comparative August 2010"
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 24, 2010
  10. ReverseGear

    ReverseGear Guest

    Are whe here to discuss the av comparative test or write a thesis on comodo :doubt: :cautious: :blink: :ninja:
     
  11. ronjor

    ronjor Global Moderator

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2003
    Posts:
    123,336
    Location:
    Texas
    Once again, the tested products are in the screenshot. Discussion of products other than those listed are considered off topic to this thread and will probably be removed.

    Don't waste everyone's time posting about non-tested products.
     

    Attached Files:

  12. Escalader

    Escalader Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Posts:
    3,710
    Location:
    Land of the Mooses

    Ron:

    I agree and support your warnings on this thread I hope you do remove OT posts if it continues.

    It is easy to get excited on this stuff but this off topic debate about vendors who aren't in the August report just create static and confuses Wilder's members.

    For me, I look at the rating of my current AV vendor and check to see if it has fallen out of the Advanced +. In this case Nod32, it is still in the group of 8 so I'm "okay" with it.


    When the license expires in 2011 it looks as if I will have some evaluation work to do.
     
  13. bellgamin

    bellgamin Very Frequent Poster

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2002
    Posts:
    7,379
    Location:
    Hawaii
    Me too!

    By the way (back on-topic) this latest AV-C test really got my attention relative to Trustport AV, which I have somehow tended to ignore in the past. PLUS, highly respected Blackcat continues to post plaudits about how light & effective TP is on his computer.

    With BC's comments plus AV-C's data, I am definitely in the market for a TP license (its FPs do not bother me, by the way). However my ability to buy is impaired by my religious affiliation to the "First Church of NEVER Pay Retail."

    But seriously, if anyone hears of any "deals" for TP licenses, please share the info with cheap-charley guys like me.
     
    Last edited: Sep 24, 2010
  14. andyman35

    andyman35 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2007
    Posts:
    2,336
    I'll say the same thing about this test that I do about all such on-demand tests.

    Percentages such as 98,99,etc. are pretty meaningless to me,it's the 1 or 2 % missed that I'm concerned with.

    2 products may have exactly the same percentage of detection but product A may fail with the most destructive,widespread malware doing the rounds;whereas product B misses rarer, comparitively less damaging threats.

    Personally I want to see just how malicious the malware missed by each product actually is.
     
  15. firzen771

    firzen771 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2007
    Posts:
    4,815
    Location:
    Canada
    id like to see a category for financial malware/keyloggers just as they have sections for trojans, script viruses, etc.
     
  16. JRViejo

    JRViejo Super Moderator

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2008
    Posts:
    71,430
    Location:
    U.S.A.
    Removed Off Topic Posts. They were not related to ronjor's Post.
     
  17. m0unds

    m0unds Guest

    it always strikes me as sort of strange that they still use macro virus samples. it's probably out of necessity, providing a "comprehensive" report and all, but it doesn't make macro viruses any less prevalent a threat.
     
  18. justenough

    justenough Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2010
    Posts:
    1,549
    Wading through yet another Comodo hyper-loyalist defense in order to read on a topic having nothing to do with Comodo.

    Yes, though unspectacular, ESET NOD32 always seems to be somewhere close to the top. And a deciding factor for me is how fast it is on my system.
     
    Last edited: Sep 25, 2010
  19. DasFox

    DasFox Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 5, 2006
    Posts:
    1,825
    Compared to the May test Avira did better.

    Avast has to many unneeded bells and whistles and as a tech every computer I've placed it on has had more of a slow down on it, when compared to Avira, plus I've had a few crashes and lockups on Avast5 too.

    For greater system stability, dependability and less of a system pull down Avira has always come out ahead.:thumb:

    GData & Avira! :thumb:
     
  20. justenough

    justenough Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2010
    Posts:
    1,549
    I am really liking NOD32, but this recommendation can't be ignored, DasFox. Time to give Avira a try.
     
  21. progress

    progress Guest

    When will Panda fix all these FPs? :)
     
  22. justenough

    justenough Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2010
    Posts:
    1,549
    Avira loaded, no conflicts on my system yet and not seeing a slow-down.

    The big surprise for me is that in a couple of recent tests Kaspersky seems to be slipping.
     
  23. IBK

    IBK AV Expert

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2003
    Posts:
    1,875
    Location:
    Innsbruck (Austria)
    please read report. they were submitted to the respective vendors and they fixed them after receiving them.
     
  24. geko

    geko Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2008
    Posts:
    35
    Ok, having a look at the set of malware (just the general name: trojans, backdoors, etc), most of the AV's have problems detecting malicious scripts. The only AV that seems to detect scripts pretty well is Avast (not considering GDATA because of the double engine which uses Avast), the others have lower detection rates compared to the other types of malware.

    Comments?

    I normally use Firefox (with NoScript).

    Are malicious scripts dangerous? I supose that the proactive modules of the AV's should help stop these type of malware. Having a look at the proactive test of AVC.

    P.S.: No information on scripts on the proactive test.

    geko.
     
  25. RejZoR

    RejZoR Lurker

    Joined:
    May 31, 2004
    Posts:
    6,426
    That's why avast! is usually the first to detect web based threats via Web Shield. That's where scripts are usually involved. But most users think they are false positives because avast! is the only one detecting them...
     
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.