AV-Comparatives : Potentially Unwanted Applications test results in

Discussion in 'other anti-virus software' started by acr1965, Dec 24, 2010.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. acr1965

    acr1965 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2006
    Posts:
    4,954
  2. andyman35

    andyman35 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2007
    Posts:
    2,336
    Great results for a few vendors there.I'd be interested to see how much better MSE 2 would perform than the version tested.:doubt:
     
  3. funkydude

    funkydude Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2004
    Posts:
    6,853
    Probably not that much higher. You have to consider that PUA's are not that important and that it still scored a respectable 93%, I think the massive line on the graph just makes it look worse :)
     
  4. icr

    icr Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2008
    Posts:
    1,588
    Location:
    Mumbai
    All the notable vendors performed very well in this test(Except Kaspersky and Eset) but still PUAs are not an issue for me as far as detection are concerned;)
     
  5. Boyfriend

    Boyfriend Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2010
    Posts:
    1,070
    Location:
    Pakistan
    Thanks for share :) Panda result is very good here.
     
  6. steve1955

    steve1955 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2004
    Posts:
    1,384
    Location:
    Sunny(in my dreams)Manchester,England
    I think this is down to who decides just what is a potentially unwanted application,it is rather arbitrary in its definition
     
  7. LODBROK

    LODBROK Guest

    At the bottom of page 4:
    "Due to the challenge of testing PUA in that every AV vendor undergoes its own criteria to define the PUA bar, we are not planning to conduct a separate PUA test next year."
     
  8. 0strodamus

    0strodamus Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2009
    Posts:
    1,047
    Location:
    United Surveillance States
    The only PUA alerts that I ever see are for Nirsoft programs. Even though their detection rates aren't as high as some of the others that were tested, it annoyed me enough to shut off the PUP detection in avast.
     
  9. Noob

    Noob Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2009
    Posts:
    6,468
    Nice :D
     
  10. safeguy

    safeguy Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2010
    Posts:
    1,712
    You've hit the nail on the head;)

    - the average folks would hardly be affected by those unless a major FP.
    - the techies would be affected seeing the no. of tools that they used which behave in a 'potentially unwanted' manner
    - the warez community simply despise it as some AVs flag nearly all their "goodies" without mercy
     
  11. Nevis

    Nevis Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2010
    Posts:
    786
    Location:
    255.255.255.255
    always good to ur security product scoring high :)
     
  12. Cutting_Edgetech

    Cutting_Edgetech Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2006
    Posts:
    4,951
    Location:
    USA
    It would have been good to see how Prevx scored in this test.
     
  13. PJC

    PJC Very Frequent Poster

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Posts:
    2,959
    Location:
    Internet
    Potentially Unwanted Applications (PUA) has been a highly-debatable issue, as different vendors define PUA differently.
    As a result, many have found these tests unnecessary...
    Code:
    "Due to the challenge of testing PUA in that every AV vendor undergoes
    its own criteria to define the PUA bar,
    [B]we are [U]not[/U] planning to conduct a [U]separate[/U] PUA test [U]next[/U] year[/B]."
    I guess, the above explains everything...;)
     
  14. Cutting_Edgetech

    Cutting_Edgetech Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2006
    Posts:
    4,951
    Location:
    USA
    I want to see more third party testing dedicated to testing an applications ability to detect, and defend against commercial keyloggers, and hardware keyloggers. It would be difficult to defend against hardware keyloggers since a person would have already had physical access to your machine to install a hardware keylogger, but I would just like to see an applications ability to detect them by detecting the drivers they use to function. I want to see how programs like Prevx, spyshelter, Zemana, and others hold up to third party testing. I would like to see their ability to defend against other logging methods as well, but my primary concern is keyloggers.
     
  15. nikanthpromod

    nikanthpromod Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2009
    Posts:
    1,369
    Location:
    India
    Higher the PUA detection Higher the FPs :isay: ;)
     
  16. toxinon12345

    toxinon12345 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2010
    Posts:
    1,200
    Location:
    Managua, Nicaragua
    Why? I've always known to [Norton] Symantec as a low FP product and higher detection in PUA
     
  17. firzen771

    firzen771 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2007
    Posts:
    4,815
    Location:
    Canada
    well cus many people will have different ideas of what program is "unwanted" so ull get more FP's with some people.
     
  18. safeguy

    safeguy Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2010
    Posts:
    1,712
    I'm pretty sure some folks here would disagree with that seeing how "aggressive" Norton Reputation Service and Sonar can be when it comes to files that Symantec knows not much about...for e.g. self-made batch files, self-made programs etc,etc

    The typical home user might not experience that so Norton can be more suitable for them seeing they see less "FPs".
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.