AV-Comparatives: The balance between performance (low speed-impact) and real-time detection

https://www.av-comparatives.org/the...nce-low-speed-impact-and-real-time-detection/

 

thanks, mini.

 

You're welcome

 

peoples really belive in these test ?
All AV always with epic 98% ALWAYS ratio xD
AVG MCAfee etc quality on same level what Norton Avira or Kaspersky... LMFAO

Even eset droped down thier marketing emblem on website bc they dont wanna pratice in this crap
My mate asked they and they sended him this answer
https://imgur.com/a/Ydr3EsI

 

So, in common user term, what is in your guys’s opinions wrong with the test?

 

I think this comparison raises more questions than it answers. At least for me.

 

Use brain and look what its not normal in these test...

Every Year !!! month in month.... almost all Anti Vrus have Excelent result... There is no loser all are Winner EPIC 99% Quality detect ratio xD
The wrost from worst AVs have same perfect 99% Ratio detect as other definite better AVs
And you asking what is wrong with these test... xDDDDD

And fun fact almost all Anti-vrus pin these gay emblem from this poor test to
their own website site as winer.. ofc just marketing purpose for gray dumb peoples...

Now compare thier result with other more serious vendor like VB
When even best software dont pas 75% ratio and even if some one hit 85% do it one time on copule test...

You can also Check MalwareTips site where peoples share their own analize malwares which they founded by myself or not myself but still undetected able during test by most AVs
And many time they share their test where they use few scanners gather on system and still might leak malware to system
Like Norton + Kaspersky + Hitman Pro and still system infected / virus not detected
First better Examples : https://malwaretips.com/threads/avira-pro-february-2022-report.112247/

You can also check todo / Vurenbalies task from other FAT company like VMware how offen they fix lack security issue...
https://www.wilderssecurity.com/thr...visories-certifications-guides.346094/page-10

Im lazy to search info but time to time its spot for hackers where company pay $$$ for bypass software from Browser to special hardware endpoint solution.
Last time each of it has been bypassed... so yea hackers screw all security solution as far....

Once again:
And you enter this crap AV -comporatives and AV test = pseudo/marketing testing vendors and read ******* about thier perfect 99% result in each software almost each time..

If you interested i prefer check some neutral peoples who hunt and analize malware on myself hand and dont sell myself for $$$

Who use special engines/server for deep analize malware or use 3rd software for manual not like these happy clicker who run task manager and try hunt malware process xDDD
These guys show many interesting things
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3GW1QqPNLig
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fY-2wqmVWWA

For manual analize FAQ here is good guide list/software and not only.
https://github.com/rshipp/awesome-malware-analysis

 

Reference Post #7 above: Over the years, I have read these sorts of wordy, negative comments in every thread that reports test results. IMO, Wilders members are not ignorant. We are fully aware of the pros & cons of test reports, and we are quite able to draw our own conclusions when we read them.

For each and every test, AV-Comparatives (AV-C) always includes a very detailed explanation of the specific methodology that they used in conducting that specific test. If anyone sees a possible fault in AV-C's methodology, posting that information would be helpful & instructive. On the other hand, the same old long-winded diatribes saying that "tests stink, they are useless" are of no value whatsoever IMO.

 

I should not comment,
should I...?
I should not comment,
should I ?...

 

@Quassar

Did you check link posted in OP? There is no detection results in this test. It just shows when files are analysed by specific AV solution. I doubt that any of your links provides similar information.

So IMO your criticism is posted in wrong thread.

 

couldn't have said it any better. aloha to hawaii.

 

?

Well, I guess you should have refrained from posting.

 

That pretty much sum it up

 

IMHO, all established commercial AV vendors have very mature products (including the free ones) that might have peaked on their effectiveness for current and future threats. To me that explains the testing results we see from AV-Test and AV-Comparatives. The products are so close together that it's not measurable in most tests. You can only aspire to being 100% effective. Local file signatures, Cloud file signatures, Heuristics, Behavioral, etc., etc., are all used today. In addition a lot of vendors use detection engines from a common vendor. That's why we are seeing more and more brands adding non AV related "features" to add "value", stand apart and justify the price. This is also becoming overcrowded since now most of them offer the same add-ons. So what makes one "better", "faster", "lighter", "heavier", "freer", "friendlier", etc., etc.: It's personal!

But you already knew that.