AV-Comparatives - Real-World Protection Test - April 2013

Discussion in 'other anti-virus software' started by King Grub, May 10, 2013.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. King Grub

    King Grub Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2006
    Posts:
    814
  2. Impet

    Impet Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 5, 2013
    Posts:
    898
    AVG is good but the protection is really user-dependent. :blink:
     
  3. malexous

    malexous Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2010
    Posts:
    828
    Location:
    Ireland
    IBK, will you confirm, was the "out-of-box" protection tested with Microsoft Security Essentials installed?
     
  4. flik

    flik Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 21, 2006
    Posts:
    49
    Forticlient did extremely well once again. It's a pity that I found it quite heavy in my system.
    Avast continues to be probably the most reliable free solution, avg is also good, it may rely very much on user decisions about identity detections, but the messages are pretty clear and I don't think anyone could hit allow.
     
  5. anon

    anon Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2012
    Posts:
    4,102
    Last edited: May 10, 2013
  6. anon

    anon Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2012
    Posts:
    4,102
    Read the PDF, page 3
     
  7. done75

    done75 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2008
    Posts:
    17
    BD the best by far.
     
  8. malexous

    malexous Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2010
    Posts:
    828
    Location:
    Ireland
    Page three does not actually mention whether it was installed or not. It is listed as a tested product, though, which is why I want the confirmation.
     
  9. cohbraz

    cohbraz Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2012
    Posts:
    26
    Location:
    United States
    Wow. What is McAfee up to? Their numbers have really improved over the past few months.
     
  10. Impet

    Impet Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 5, 2013
    Posts:
    898
    AV-C should test Bitdefender Free as well. :)
     
  11. anon

    anon Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2012
    Posts:
    4,102
    IMHO, page 3 says more than this.
     
  12. smage

    smage Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2008
    Posts:
    377
    Where is Symantec?

    It seems AV-C is choosing which tests to include Symantec, how unprofessional given that Symantec wanted to participate solely in dynamic tests!!!

    Nice results for avast, wonder what is the user dependent part.
     
  13. spywar

    spywar Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2012
    Posts:
    583
    Location:
    Paris
    Things related to AutoSandbox (once it does not detect a malware) ?
     
  14. anon

    anon Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2012
    Posts:
    4,102
    The AV generates a pop-up which asking you what should it do.
     
  15. er34

    er34 Guest

    Find me critical, find me like somebody who always break the party but what is written in the PDF and what AVC does is totally wrong. By default Windows Defender is in Windows 8 and is part of the OS, as well as other features. But Microsoft Security Essentials (although it is equivalent) is not part of the Microsoft OS and is not out of the box. For Windows 7 out of the box would be Windows Defender in Win7 + the Windows 7 security features.

    Microsoft Security Essentials (although free and part of the Microsoft Security Client family) is not out-of-the-box for Windows XP/Vista/7 and does requires about 2 to 5 minutes manual interaction (downloading, installing, updating, etc).

    Additionally, out of the box protection would require AVC or any other testing organization to test and count other Microsoft protection features such as Windows Firewall, Windows Defender, Smart Screen filter for IE, Protected mode, DEP, etc <these in Windows 7>.

    Very unprofessional of AVC ! :isay:

    Additionally, they included Symantec just once trying to ruin its good reputation and to make it rejoin - now they skip it. This game did not work, AVC :thumbd:
     
  16. Macstorm

    Macstorm Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2005
    Posts:
    2,531
    Location:
    Sneffels volcano
    BD free shouldn't be unmasked. AV-C need to eat too :D
     
  17. nine9s

    nine9s Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2013
    Posts:
    265
    Location:
    USA
    Are AVs done at default settings?
     
    Last edited: May 10, 2013
  18. Firecat

    Firecat Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2005
    Posts:
    7,927
    Location:
    The land of no identity :D
    Er....Symantec is included in the performance tests. It is just a matter of financial viability - dynamic tests are the most expensive (in terms of time and money) to test. No great "game" here.

    I do think (and hope) that Symantec will probably be seen in more tests from AV-C.

    Yes, I think the testing is performed with default settings, though vendors may ask to enable/disable/ignore some specific features (this is usually specified in the relevant reports).
     
    Last edited: May 11, 2013
  19. shadek

    shadek Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2008
    Posts:
    2,363
    Location:
    Sweden
    What's the sample size?
     
  20. Sprocket

    Sprocket Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2012
    Posts:
    73
    Over on Fortinet's Forticlient forum, just earlier today, one person suggested turning off Windows Defender. A user was having serious performance issues, and in response, someone said, "Did you make sure Windows Defender is turned off? I have seen some serious slowness all over Win 7 if both are running at the same time."

    In another thread here, King Grub linked to a new AV-Comparative performance report that showed some slowness in one or two tasks with Forticlient's previous version. Some AVs were a little lighter here and there, one (Kingsoft) was significantly heavier.

    That said, I haven't seen significant slowness, even on a modestly powered PC (Core 2 Duo, 2.1 GHz). Maybe a classic case of YMMV.
     
  21. true indian

    true indian Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2012
    Posts:
    764
    Location:
    india
    Hmm..EAM was ahead in march and back in april,still questionable enough to me :rolleyes:

    The sample set is always a few 1000 whereas every month a AV see's just more than that.....you could check the last year's final results which has a lot of detailed explaination along with the sample size that pretty much wouldnt change :D

    Avast did get better over the last month atleast it got better in the way the graph is actually sorted...otherwise so far it is doing well.

    I dont see how testing with defaults is fair...in my opinion,there are many AV's that detect PUP's on defaults and testing avast with that off will be kind of unfair as there can be 50 in 100% chances of increase in blocked ratio with that turned on even if AV-C strictly tries to remove all the PUP's some malicious programs can be sorted differently by AV company.

    btw,avast just released a new version fixing their sandbox logger so we can hope to see some differences in next AV-C test round.

    Any word from Vlk about the missed samples in the test,last month the sandbox was catching on them what happened this time?
     
    Last edited: May 11, 2013
  22. RejZoR

    RejZoR Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2004
    Posts:
    6,426
    G-Data also scored 100% as far as i'm concerned. Even if it's user dependent, users usually get scared and block the detection anyway even if unsure.

    I mean, if you treat user dependent detections as potential misses, then so you should every other detection that user can exclude. Because some will do even that...
     
  23. J_L

    J_L Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2009
    Posts:
    8,516
    Is it not financially viable to test MSE or Windows Defender ("Win 8")?
     
  24. SLE

    SLE Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2011
    Posts:
    361
    It's very fair cause all vendors are tested so and can influence their own recommended default settings.
    But I think it's not fair if some products give the majority of users (which use default settings) less protection. ;) Shame on them not on the testers :D

    They test PROGRAMS and not USERS - so this treatment is quite ok, cause the programs don't give clear results and belong to users choice. And if they choose there is a potential for misses. btw. the user choice results are treatet as they are - no clear detection and no clear miss. (but we had this discussion several time.)
     
  25. true indian

    true indian Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2012
    Posts:
    764
    Location:
    india
    I dont see the point...avast doesnt give PUP on by default because it can result in detection of programs that arent malicious but can be used for bad purposes so how is that less protection,I am looking from the testing point of view: is it fair to test 1 product with something on and the other with same thing off!? :rolleyes:

    Another plainly stupid assumption in action to defend independent testing organizations and their methods of testing and attempt to attack a AV vendor,what's the deal are you guys being paid by AV test groups or whato_O

    I was just stating my opinion and point of view,if you dont like it ignore it,no need to stand in defense. :argh:
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.