AV-Comparatives On-Demand Comparative March 2012

I tried opening the PDF in my mobile Adobe Reader app originally and it didn't open either, no password prompt though. Works on the Desktop, odd.

 

Symantec does not participate in the useless on-demand tests because they would rather focus their resources on protecting their customers from Real world malware, using test methodologies that exercise all aspects of the product.

Their usage of Dennis labs has everything to do with the test methodology and nothing to do with whether Symantec pays Dennis or not.

Even from AV-Comparatives' own "Whole Product "Real World" Dynamic Test" you can see the results of their efforts. They are consistently #1.

http://www.av-comparatives.org/images/stories/test/dyn/wpdt2011_2_en.pdf

So if the test methodology in the above doc is "real world" then that would make this silly on-demand test "NOT real world" and irrelevant. So why does AV-Comparatives waste their time doing it ??

Because the "expert" computer magazines ask him for it ?
Because he makes a lot of money on it ?
Because its easier to do ?
Because he is more comfortable doing it ?

Btw... ALL vendors pay AV-Comparatives too.

 

IBK, the report mentions that the products are tested against almost 300.000 malware samples, but it does not state how many legitimate samples are used for the FP test.

 

sorry, to open the PDF you must use an up-to-date PDF reader. If you use an old/vulnerable version, you will get that error message asking for a pwd.
If your PDF reader is the very latest version, please try using another compatible PDF reader.

 

AV-Comparatives refused to publish Symantec's awesome results in the Real world tests, just because they would not participate in the utterly useless on-demand test.

See https://www.wilderssecurity.com/showpost.php?p=2042933&postcount=27

This is just another example of AV-Comparatives trying to make up rules for the entire AV-industry when they dont have the training, background, or expertise to do so. AV-Comparatives sucks!

 

How does that apply to mobile apps? It's not like they really get updated :/

 

The built-in PDF viewer in Firefox (I'm using FF 14) can't open the PDF either. Complains about unsupported encryption algorithm.

 

Somebody's been drinking the koolaid.

 

Later this thread became how to open PDF File Thread!!!

 

LMAO

 

A valid complaint because people like to view the pdf in question and some can't.

 

please try again, now it should work (same version like the other PDFs).

 

It's not a matter of paying for testing to a independent company, is a matter of sponsor a a testing company.

I guess it's cheaper and they get better results always 100%

/Speculating:
Also is very cool that it has the name (Denis Coleman) of one of the founders, he must be proud.
Den(Norton)is Coleman = Dennis Tech. Labs
Who knows? xD

 

They do not.

 

Well they try to dissimulate but they can't.

Why Norton appears first if G data is the best one? xD

If you continue reading the conclusions Norton seems to be the best one. Well, indeed Norton is good but...

Yes, so Gdata is the best one, block everything 100% (it never get infected) but finally thanks to the methodology scores a 96, the same than Norton that get infected...
Suite methodology xD

 

Interesting, for that old test they did not rate every firewall popup as a false positive - which changed the results alot in the new test. Hmm...

 

I have never been as concerned with FP's IF the product allows me to decide to quareentee them, ignore or delete.

I'd hate to think the scan was "soft" just to avoid the FP penalty.

 

The reason for the scoring system is given. It is the same scoring system that gives Kaspersky PURE a better protection rating than Norton 360 here, despite Kaspersky PURE being the only one of the two compromised.

 

For me As long as there is a balance between good detection and a reasonable amount of fp's and I have a choice of what to do with detections it finds,then thats fine with me.

However I look at it this way,If product A detects 95 percent of lets say 300 hundred samples and has 20 fps and product B detects 85 percent of the 300 hundred samples and produces 5 fp,then product B is the one for me as long as it meets my criteria.

My critieria is.
1.It must be light
2.It must have good detection.
3.It must have a good reputation of being reliable and or stable.
4.It must not annoy me with adds or tool bars in any way or it's history.
5.It must be compatiable with most third party security software.
6.It must have the support when needed.
7.The price is reasonable.

 

428 FP Trend Micro had a lot of FP too - 166

Eset did well, good detection and only 2 FP!

 

Good to see Mcafee still doing well, Avast seems to have done better with version:7 and Kaspersky as usual excellent.

Really worried with Fp's of Trendmicro and Webroot, could it be because both are now based on cloud technology?

 

I'd like to have that product also. Hopefully some day someone will create it.

 

Maybe Next Year ZenOK will Sponsor the Test & they will be on Top 3
But Don't Tell RejZor About ZenOK.

Welcome to Earth Buddy!!!
how are Supermen's doing in Kripton

 

Felix Dennis.

 

while you're all having a dig at the Dennis Labs test for being "sponsored" by Norton,did any of you catch this paragraph in a reply from them in another thread?

The testing methodology we use is not defined by the sponsor. It's ours and the sponsor has to accept it or we won't do the work. In fact, a test using this same methodology was accepted by AMTSO as being 100 per cent compliant with its testing principles. Currently ours is the only test that has been found to match the fairness and accuracy of those principles.

Perhaps you are all saying they are being dishonest?