AV-Comparatives Results - Nov 2007 Retrospective/ProActive Test

Really and you need to learn the word bias http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bias

 

who is being bias?

 

The one who teaches and preaches example

 

I still don't understand why disables fortinet's heuristic,only it will cause many fps?Wow,fortinet's heuristic means flag packers,some AV also use this way(use heuristic/signature to flag packers) to detect virus,but they have many whitelists.I think it only detects packers,not true virus.I want to know if fortinet adds many whitelists like them,it will get ADVANCED+?I think Andreas should add more fp samples from users(home users and business users).

 

you obviously did not read my post if you think i was being bias.

 

yes, Fortinet recieves 1000+ FP's.

if an AV with 10 gets lowered to Standard, Fortinet has no chance, so they are disabled to give them a fighting chance.

obviously, they didnt fight all that well, with just 3% detected.

 

I don't think you did either

 

Re: Av-Comparatives Results

Could not agree more. I have never had a fp with Avira on 60gb of data and files that change frequently. Extremely high risk user-no http fps of any kind, etc.

 

there is nothing bias in my post,

you have seen my post and automatically thought im bashing Avira. *lol*

Your reply is just automatic, you should ask yourself why i would challenge 19 FP's when drweb scored 35?

 

Re: Av-Comparatives Results

Correct, apart from my router and Avira, I have nothing else, I am high risk as well as I use P2P. The only consolaiton is I use Opera for my browser and mail.

 

1 post removed and 1 edited.

Let's stop the name calling and act like adults, ok?

It's getting old people...



snowbound

 

1 more post removed.

Stop! or this thread will be closed!




snowbound

 

Its not automatic, its evident, you come with a fictitious number of 16FPs from 50 files, thats absurd in every sense. Also btw, the number of FP is 16 and not 19, don't be making false numbers just because you hate the product so vehemently.

 

One thing is certain, there is a bevy of high-quality solutions out there to choose from. Many people in many different AV fan camps have reasons to be proud of their product's improvements.

 

its clear you dont understand what an example is, i did try to help you.

there was no bias in my post, just stating to you that the FP test is infact a different test and not based on the same amount.

again, you fail to understand this.

 

Just because I don't see your way nor the world does doesn't mean we don't understand your bias in every sense. If its anyone who needs help, its you, definitely not me. A ludicrous example doesn't make any comparative sense here in the context of the tests. If I or others are to say that we prefer the high number of detection and are prepared to live with the 16 FPs, does that mean we are wrong and you are correct?

 

I think you misunderstood Arup. He never said that the 16 fp were taken from the 25000 samples. He said that he accepts some false positives for a higher detection rate.
Anyway the number of file in the clean files testset was quite large (see questions 9 and 75 in the methodology.pdf), not 50.

 

Muchas Gracias Señor.

 

i havnt misunderstood anything ggf,

if he can understand that my comment, was just an example.

and i can understand that he finally understands that the fp test is a different amount of files, and not the 25k tested.

then thats fine, all is well.

 

the experienced users that do not care about false positives are able to see which product score highest for them.
for the rest of normal users who care about FP's are prefer a product on which verdict they can rely on more they will also see how the product score.
the results are quite transparent and also why some got standard etc., so there is for anyone something to read. the argument that with e.g. a heuristic setting set to low it would be a+ is not a good argument, because then you should also think about how that product would have scored in august (e.g. a standard or A there instead of A+). As soon as products are able to keep the FP rate much lower (which should not be that hard based on the clean set used) and provide also a high proactive detection rate, they will be able to be very proud of the score and award reached; changing the scoring system now to make some products look better would not be very fair (and not something that I would do).

 

i dont think any of the products give a huge amount of FP's to be lowered.

i dont think 16, or 35 or even <100 is enough to be lowered if the test includes a few thousand files (or more) , i just dont think its very many.

well, maybe 100 is too much ... but 10 certainly to me seems too low if a few thousand are checked.

but hey, thats just me.

 

IBK,

Exactly my point, I can live with FPs but not low detection. Avira also has extended threat category which can lead to FPs as well, point is its better to get FPs and check out the file itself than go blind and happy by the fact that the AV didn't commit any FPs and yet let a virus through.

 

Then logically we (and you) would take the greatest detection rate coupled with a "reasonable" number of FP's. Then the deduction would be Avira as the most efficacious member of this club. That is what we have been saying. If you don't like Avira-fine. But it gets the bad guys with a manageable number of FP's (in my view).

 

it may be better for u because you are an experienced user who distinguishes a good from a bad file. but dont forget that most users install antivirus programs hoping they will never need to deal with popups about detections and fp's are even worse.

 

The detection numbers may be transparent, but the rating system is not. I would strongly prefer if the rating system is announced *before* the testing is even started, ie. how much % you have to detect to score std, adv, adv+ and how many false positives are "few", "many" and so on.

Adjusting the rating system with every new test is not transparent at all.