AV-Comparatives Retrospective / Proactive Test May 2011 released!

Discussion in 'other anti-virus software' started by clayieee, May 25, 2011.

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

    clayieee Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2011
    Posts:
    261
  2. King Grub

    King Grub Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2006
    Posts:
    814
  3. InfinityAz

    InfinityAz Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2005
    Posts:
    828
    Location:
    Arizona
    Re: AV-Comparatives Retrospective/Proactive Test May 2011

    Norton/Symantec did not take part in the test, interesting.
     
  4. funkydude

    funkydude Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2004
    Posts:
    6,852
    What's up with MS, maybe the February signatures sucked? (They sucked in the other test too with February signatures). OneCare sucked, then they released MSE and poured resources into good detection rates, now it's sliding again.

    Going to try Windows 8 beta without AV, seems pointless these days. Maybe not for standard users, but definitely for me, looking at those detection rates.
     
    Last edited: May 25, 2011
  5. sg09

    sg09 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2009
    Posts:
    2,713
    Location:
    Kolkata, India
    Re: AV-Comparatives Retrospective/Proactive Test May 2011

    Thanks..:) At last a good result for Avira. Alas! Avast not included. I am almost sure it has improved proactive detection. Because G Data scored good but Bitdefender not.
     
  6. funkydude

    funkydude Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2004
    Posts:
    6,852
    Re: AV-Comparatives Retrospective/Proactive Test May 2011

    Yes and then you wonder, HMMM! How does BitDefender get 100% on 0-day (which frankly is BS) on av-test.org yet score poorly elsewhere? :rolleyes:
     
  7. m00nbl00d

    m00nbl00d Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2009
    Posts:
    6,623
    I think MS's idea was to have millions of users systems functioning as honeypots... perhaps to increase detection rates of the enterprise product version? :D

    Sometime ago an user by the nickname Chris_MS (Microsoft employee?) did say they prefer to get samples from users themselves... Maybe this was a hint... *puppy*

    I have to consider a different solution to relatives, because, as you say, MSE detections rate are increasing... :rolleyes: (Note, I'm being sarcastic!!! :p)
     
  8. codylucas16

    codylucas16 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2009
    Posts:
    267
    I think more vendors are starting to get the fact that these tests are useless in regards to determining how well they protect your PC as many did not include in this test.

    In my opinion, that's a step in the right direction.
     
  9. Matthijs5nl

    Matthijs5nl Guest

    I surely agree with you. Everybody sees that the only test which has some real world relevance is the whole product dynamic test.

    But the most vendors will stay particapating in the on-demand tests I think, simply because the results (most are around 99%/98%) are way higher there in comparison to the retrospective tests, which makes them look good to average users.
    Also I do think most of them will keep participating in the yearly performance test.
     
  10. m0unds

    m0unds Guest

    Re: AV-Comparatives Retrospective/Proactive Test May 2011

    the methodology is different. the sample size is different. the types of samples are different. why is it so hard for people to accept that different testing organizations can have different results with different sample sizes and different methodologies? :rolleyes:

    (FYI: AV-test's proactive detection sample size for their latest report: 29. AV-C's? 9177.)
     
  11. funkydude

    funkydude Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2004
    Posts:
    6,852
    Re: AV-Comparatives Retrospective/Proactive Test May 2011

    I guess I didn't put enough emphasis on "100% 0-day", something no AV in the world is capable off.
     
  12. Quitch

    Quitch Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2008
    Posts:
    94
    I question the point of this test without an Internet connection. I understand what they're trying to represent but I don't think it's something useful to represent. How often are machines in working offline scenarios executing files that wouldn't have gone through the on-access scanner at some time prior?

    And clearly the vendors are thinking this since more and more of them are dropping out of this test.
     
  13. m0unds

    m0unds Guest

    Re: AV-Comparatives Retrospective/Proactive Test May 2011

    ...that's not what's claimed. what's claimed is a 100% detection/thwart/whatever rate in av-test's 29 0-day sample test.

    i'd imagine you'd agree that 29 samples is tiny and that the 9177 samples in this av-c test likely produce a better picture, right?

    at any rate, totally OT.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 25, 2011
  14. xxJackxx

    xxJackxx Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2008
    Posts:
    4,047
    Location:
    USA
    Extremely rare for ESET to get false positives like that. Not consistent with my usage of their products.
     
  15. Brandonn2010

    Brandonn2010 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2011
    Posts:
    1,849
    Why were Avast!, AVG, Norton all missing? Come on!
     
  16. gery

    gery Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2008
    Posts:
    1,785
    Norton missing?
     
  17. xandros

    xandros Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2006
    Posts:
    411
    the important things to me norton & avast
    and its not include it o_O o_O
     
  18. lodore

    lodore Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2006
    Posts:
    9,006
    I much prefer the real world tests. static on demand scanner tests with outdated signatures only show part of the story.
     
  19. sg09

    sg09 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2009
    Posts:
    2,713
    Location:
    Kolkata, India
    I use eset online scanner as my primary on-demand scanner. I have to say that its FP rate on clean files have increased.
     
  20. Superman20

    Superman20 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2007
    Posts:
    39
    It would have been nice to see actual number of malware detected in addition to summary % detection.
     
  21. Matthijs5nl

    Matthijs5nl Guest

    I agree that the number of false positives in tests (both AV-Test and AV-Comparatives) caused by ESET have increased over let's say the past six months. However I have never encountered one myself.
     
  22. xxJackxx

    xxJackxx Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2008
    Posts:
    4,047
    Location:
    USA
    Sorry to hear that. I just installed the beta 5 yesterday. I guess we'll see how long it lasts.
     
  23. malexous

    malexous Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2010
    Posts:
    828
    Location:
    Ireland
    Posts 15-17, the non-inclusion of some vendors has been touched upon, starting on page four of the document.
     
  24. Marcos

    Marcos Eset Staff Account

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2002
    Posts:
    14,374
    Have you reported these files to ESET to confirm or deny that they are false positives? In the mean time, could you post here some of those detections which might give us a clue as to what files you mean?
     
  25. jaodsvuda

    jaodsvuda Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2011
    Posts:
    146
    You mean in "Vipre´s direction".I would pay some good money to see it thoroughly tested just once. :D
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.