AV-Comparatives: Real-World Protection Overall Report - March to June 2014

Discussion in 'other anti-virus software' started by anon, Jul 17, 2014.

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

    anon Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2012
    Posts:
    4,091
    AV-Comparatives:


    Real-World Protection Test March-June 2014 (PDF):
    http://www.av-comparatives.org/dynamic-tests/

    Real-World Protection Test March-June 2014 (Chart):
    http://chart.av-comparatives.org/chart1.php?chart=chart2&year=2014&month=7&sort=1&zoom=3
     
    Last edited: Jul 17, 2014
  2. true indian

    true indian Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2012
    Posts:
    752
    Location:
    india
    Awesome stuff from QIhoo and Avira.... :)
     
  3. Minimalist

    Minimalist Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2014
    Posts:
    5,060
    Thanks for sharing report. The best AVs are doing great :thumb:
     
  4. trjam

    trjam Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2006
    Posts:
    9,057
    Location:
    North Carolina
    Congrats to Panda, you have really proven you deserve to be at the top.
     
  5. Securon

    Securon Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2009
    Posts:
    1,935
    Location:
    London On
    Good Evening! All Set...with Eset ! Sincerely...Securon
     
  6. SweX

    SweX Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2007
    Posts:
    6,429
    Thanks for the update.
     
  7. Brandonn2010

    Brandonn2010 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2011
    Posts:
    1,849
    Panda continues to impress

    Avast! continues to disappoint. Still waiting for all the Super Mega Evo Screen Shields to deliver results.

    Surprised to see Lavasoft so low considering it uses Bitdefender.
     
  8. Rompin Raider

    Rompin Raider Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2010
    Posts:
    1,228
    Location:
    North Texas
    Well hello Panda! Nice job as well as several others. Interesting.....
     
  9. Impet

    Impet Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 5, 2013
    Posts:
    894
    Well said, even Fortinet is better than Avast. :eek:
     
  10. Antimalware18

    Antimalware18 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2008
    Posts:
    417
    First off I would like to say great job Panda, Avira, ect.

    Second off I would also like to say that I don't really like the "real-world test" If I am no mistaken Isn't the real world test where they visit live malware links?
    Because If so a program can have amazing "real-world" protection from a amazing web filter (panda) and somewhat mediocre signature detections (also panda from malware pack results)

    But yet a program with great signature detections as shown through malware pack results as is the case with Baidu AV yet shows mediocre results in the real-world test.

    In no way am I bashing panda I quite like the software. This is just a few things I have noticed from the real-world test results over the months...
     
  11. Noob

    Noob Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2009
    Posts:
    6,468
    Congratulations to the top players. :thumb:

    If you read the testing procedure, they also let the malware execute so they actually test the whole suite. (Web filter, signatures, behavior blockers, everything!)

    However one thing that holds true is that if a software has a very good web filter it could pass the test easily.
     
  12. Minimalist

    Minimalist Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2014
    Posts:
    5,060
    If malware is distributed through web and web filters can prevent the download then AV did it's job and protected the system. IMO real world protection tests are the most relevant among the tests they do.
     
  13. FleischmannTV

    FleischmannTV Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2013
    Posts:
    1,071
    Location:
    Germany
    @Antimalware18

    If a program has no webfilter at all and the fileguard detects the malicious file, it's counted as blocked as well. You can achieve 100% at AV-Comparatives without a webfilter.
     
  14. garrett76

    garrett76 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2014
    Posts:
    210
    As well as all the other products licensee of bitdefender, Lavasoft uses just the bitdefender's signatures, it completely lacks of the behavioural part, i.e. active virus control.
     
  15. m0use0ver

    m0use0ver Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2011
    Posts:
    81
    Yup, this is the most critical area of tests from a protection standpoint.

    The other critical test area is for computer remediation after they have been inevitably bypassed.

    All other tests have limited or no real world value beyond advertizing material for vendors or extra income for the testers.
     
  16. Firefighter

    Firefighter Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2002
    Posts:
    1,670
    Location:
    Finland
    I'm a bit of wondering how Qihoo 360 Internet Security performed that well in this test, when they haven't updated trojan/phishing websites regularly.

    2013-06-14 Trojan websites in database 667,181 -- Phishing websites in database 2,370,781

    2013-07-24 Trojan websites in database 667,181 -- Phishing websites in database 2,370,781

    2014-04-01 Trojan websites in database 910,833 -- Phishing websites in database 2,932,451

    2014-06-30 Trojan websites in database 910,833 -- Phishing websites in database 2,932,451

    2014-07-04 Trojan websites in database 910,833 -- Phishing websites in database 2,932,451

    2014-07-08 Trojan websites in database 1,234,122 -- Phishing websites in database 3,815,422

    2014-07-18 Trojan websites in database 1,234,122 -- Phishing websites in database 3,815,422
     
    Last edited: Jul 18, 2014
  17. Inside Out

    Inside Out Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2013
    Posts:
    421
    Location:
    Pangea
    Qihoo IS isn't just about databases and signatures; its cloud protection and heuristics are also very good.
     
  18. taleblou

    taleblou Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2010
    Posts:
    1,166
    Well I take these result with a grain of salt. My own personal tests of real world test for me shows panda does bad comapred to avast. Speicaly in the post download running exe. My tests show panda missed a bunch of malwares and allowed them to run while avast sandbox behavior/hips stopped all of them even thsoe missed by avast antivirus.

    So to me AVAST set to maximum protection rules over others.
     
  19. Firefighter

    Firefighter Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2002
    Posts:
    1,670
    Location:
    Finland
    How can I enable sandbox in avast free?

    PS. I have used Panda free online scanner before in my Win 7 Home Premium system and those Panda files causes BSOD when I tried full system scan with 360 ISo_O? I know that Panda doesn't encrypt their defs by no means, so wtf?
     
    Last edited: Jul 18, 2014
  20. malexous

    malexous Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2010
    Posts:
    828
    Location:
    Ireland
    Symantec and G Data were also tested.

    http://www.securitywatch.pcmag.com/...-antivirus-protection-test-winners-and-losers
     
  21. Inside Out

    Inside Out Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2013
    Posts:
    421
    Location:
    Pangea
    Last edited: Jul 18, 2014
  22. Brandonn2010

    Brandonn2010 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2011
    Posts:
    1,849
    Can anyone confirm if Panda's results were with or without the toolbar installed?
     
  23. IBK

    IBK AV Expert

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2003
    Posts:
    1,819
    Location:
    Innsbruck (Austria)
    default = with toolbar.
     
  24. SLE

    SLE Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2011
    Posts:
    361
    And why you don't like the test -because it's someway more realistic? ;-)

    What is more relevant: Testing of some live infections which exist itw or playing with some strange malware packs, where nobody can say you anything about the prevalation of the malware (does it exist in real world or only in the pack, is this malware functionally at all etc.) o_O

    Even more, most so called "malware packs" you can see in private tests contain files that aren't malware and are only classified wrongly by some AVs. (Most providers of such packs use AVs to detect if something is malicious or not).

    So even if the WPRT is far from being perfect - private malware pack testing has no relevance at all.
     
  25. phyniks

    phyniks Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2011
    Posts:
    258
    Are these test with AV's default setting or max. setting ?

    for example,regarding Avast,is PUP Detection and Hardened Mode activated?or about Avira...do they check all threat categories?
     
    Last edited: Jul 19, 2014
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.