AV-Comparatives Whole Product Dynamic Tests updated

March results:

http://chart.av-comparatives.org/chart2.php

 

No Norton results. What gives? Just bought a one year(3 pc) license of NIS, and now my favorite testing site has no information on it.

 

"Symantec only wanted to take part in our public tests if they could choose which of the tests from our yearly public test-series they participated in; specifically, they did not want to take the File Detection Test (formerly called On-Demand Test). As an independent testing organization, we require all vendors to take part in all the basic tests in the series, and do not allow them to cherry-pick tests. We feel that the File Detection Test is essential to showing the overall capabilities of an anti-virus product, especially with regard to threats that do not come directly from web pages, but are spread via email, LAN or flash drive. Other independent testing organizations (such as AV-Test, VirusBulletin, ICSALabs, WestCoastLabs) include, or rely exclusively on, file detection tests. We know that such tests are not easy to pass, especially considering the need to minimise false positives. As we cannot allow any vendor to opt out of any of the core public tests, Symantec has decided not to take part into our public tests this year."
(explained in Survey and in forum).

 

3 pc
Just look at the AVC Security Survey, they explain well what appens with Norton, I report for you:

..... Symantec only wanted to take part in our public tests if they could choose which of the tests from our yearly public test-series they participated in; specifically, they did not want to take the File Detection Test (formerly called On-Demand Test). As an independent testing organization, we require all vendors to take part in all the basic tests in the series, and do not allow them to cherry-pick tests. We feel that the File Detection Test is essential to showing the overall capabilities of an anti-virus product, especially with regard to threats that do not come directly from web pages, but are spread via email, LAN or flash drive. Other independent testing organizations (such as AV-Test, VirusBulletin, ICSALabs, WestCoastLabs) include, or rely exclusively on, file detection tests. We know that such tests are not easy to pass, especially considering the need to minimise false positives. As we cannot allow any vendor to opt out of any of the core public tests, Symantec has decided not to take part into our public tests this year.

for me +10
Norton sucks

EDIT: ooopps sorry IBK Mr. Clementi I was writing the same thing when you post

 

Top 3 as usual BD, Kaspersky, GDATA
But i never keep them on my system as i found them not the Right kind of Av's for me!!!first Two are Bloatware!!never tried GDATA though
Bullguard: Good enough. This test is going to give it some good reputation
Avast: My Fav.
Webroot:
Now when people saying that AV-C is one of the most trustworthy test out there in the market. This is not a good Result!!!
GDATA:
ESET: waiting my pc to be infected, untill then it will be in my System!!
Norton:

 

Avast finally came back to the game
let's forget 2011 and the sixth version

 

Was it the v7 of avast that was tested (I see no reason for it not to be, as it was released in Feb)? RejZoR is probably very happy right about now.

 

yes, its v7.

 

I am. The result is good. Now it just has to remain consistent.

 

I never met a fully featured quality AV that wasn't

Last year was Eset, this year is Kaspersky, when in full mode it's everything i can do to keep hard drive free space wiped & cluster tips pressed on one of my older IDE's so the AV doesn't grind it to death.

Still curious to learn where ol Norton's would have come in at if they included this years model.

 

And the new AutoSandbox techniques.

 

Very happy to see Avast! in the top tier, but with AutoSandbox and Behavior Shield set to Auto, where does the "user dependent" part come from?

 

I'd say the File Reputation warnings. That's basically the only dialog where user has some control over it. But then again, if suspicious enough, it will sandbox the file anyway, even if you select to "bypass" the File Reputation warning.
File Reputation warning basically works like a Web Shield but checks for reputation. If you pick Abort when it asks you about File Reputation, it will not download the file at all (it will cancel it). But if you allow it, the file is downloaded and sandboxed.

So in theory, it doesn't really make much difference because it gets sandboxed either way and that means it's not really user dependent.

 

Doesn't AV-C check if the sandboxed malware still managed to infect the system, and label it as user dependent only if it did? I remember a similar case with Norton's reputation and Sonar techniques, where they put it on the green bar if the malware didn't manage to infect the system even when user allowed the executable to run.

 

By manually excluding it? That kind of defeats the whole purpose of any kind of protection mechanisms. I mean, you can just as well exclude every ap from the real-time scanner. Would that count as a miss then? I think not.

That's the same reason why avast! 7 is using Auto Sandbox and give user an option later instead of the avast! 6 approach where user was asked first. And if it was answered to allow execution, the damage was done. But in current avast! 7 method, application tries to execute in sandbox first.

If the app runs and you see it work as expected and sandbox doesn't give out any bad report, it's probably ok. If the app closes instantly or shows some bad behavior to the analyzer, you can close it and forget about it.

So, bottom line, the idea is good and works. I only wish Auto Sandbox malware analysis would give more conclusive info to the user to make decisions easier. It was said to get this capability via VPS but i'm currently not aware of it (then again i haven't tested avast! 7 against malware this month).

 

Bitdefender seems to perform pretty GOOD on all tests, wonder what is the performance impact on their latest version.

 

It's true. The mechanism, the rules and behaviors, are deployed by VPS (virus definitions).

 

HEAVY, KEEPS DELETING ITS OWN EXES...
THOUGH THE SLOW INTERNET PROBLEM IS SOLVED!!!

 

Really I have BIS and none of this problems...Working great, fast internet, fast boot time, fast everything...and the best protection!

 

I dont use avast so I have trouble understanding this. How does the user CONCLUSIVELY know that the app did not execute properly in the sandbox ?

 

I dont think you understand how Norton Download Insight and SONAR work. If and when you see a Download Insight dialog (which btw is very rare), even if the user chooses Allow, SONAR will still AUTOMATICALLY block and remediate the process if it is behaving suspicious. Thats why its on the Green bar, since the malware was blocked from doing damage... AUTOMATICALLY.

 

That's what I was saying. It was user dependant only if SONAR failed to protect the system after the user had chosen to execute the program in the Download Insight dialog. It seems that I understood Avast! 7's sandbox feature slightly wrong though.

 

I've always seen Bitdefender do quite well in lots of tests, the only downside was the performance impact the last time i tried it. (Like 1 year ago)

 

bitdefender is top-notch.....every test I see nowadays, bitdefender tops the rank.....it's heavy when I tried a couple of months ago.......

 

Avast good work