AV-Comparatives Whole Product Dynamic Tests updated

Hmm We're going to have to agree to disagree.

 

I'd say the last 3 years of AV-Comparatives would do that for me. Add to that the amount of machines running Avast that I've had to clean and it's enough to convince me. Avast has a lot of fanboys I'll give you that. Again we're going to have to agree to disagree.

Now could the Avast fanboys please start a new topic and stop hijacking this one. Thanks

 

No fanboy here, but I'll say a bit on the matter. For the most part, an antivirus can't be blamed for user infected machines. If you truly do work on user machines for a living or even a hobby, you'll already know that even the best AV isn't going to do much when the user overrides it, turns it off a moment to install that game crack, goes surfing troubled websites because they darn well want to. I've been with Avast for years now, and nothing has gotten past it. I'd consider myself at times a "dangerous surfer". But the difference between myself and most of the people that seem to inhabit Wilders, is we actually listen to what our security programs are telling us. As others have said though, this thread was never about Avast or any one product so really it should be laid to rest. I just wanted to chime in on the subject because it really isn't all about the test scores.

Test scores can change for a variety of reasons. If a product scores 98% this month and 93% the next, that product doesn't "suck". In my own opinion any product that scores 90% or above is a product I will place my trust in. I'm not concerned about a miss here and there, as those misses will get fixed. If you are concerned a whole lot about getting hit with that one miss, I would suggest taking a look at your own habits or getting off the internet entirely.

 

I've cleaned machines with AVG and Norton, but I don't think they're bad AVs. I'm not a fanboy either, but to call an AV garbage that is trusted by tens of millions of users that does well, though not the best, in the largest independent tests, seems ridiculous.

 

Here we go again. With every test brings new results. With every test brings passes and failures. No av is perfect. I wish everyone would stop complaining every time testing results are not what they expected. If a product scored poorly then oh well. Gives then incentive to make the product better. I don't have an issue with any testing company. But I do have an issue when members misinterpreting the results. Example provided. What did you do when you failed a test and school? Whined and complained? No you studied harder so you could do better next time around.


https://www.wilderssecurity.com/showpost.php?p=2118166&postcount=191

 

That doesnt sound like a troll to me..More ever,if the user gets infected it's the user's fault...can i ask with what you were infected?? what are your/and people using your PC's browsing habits?? and that just looks like a attempted avast! bash..and if you have bad surfing habits..trust me no AV will be able to protect you..neither avira nor avast!..and seriously do you think any user wouldnt be contemplate to install avast?? if that's true..then avast has 160+ million users and that number cannot be wrong...and neither so many users are dumb to use avast if it was so bad in reality...So,dont mess around..I guess you even have never used avast and you are making your own assumptions.

Well said.. avast! is a great product and it will keep improving..you yourself have used avast and you know much better..rather excluding av-c avast did well in vb100 RAP quadrant and AV-tests..so we should be happy about it..we got a 2-1 score here.
lesson number 1: trust on what you have personally tested and used not on what these tests say...we already have seen mellih's statements on these tests

 

I've said all I need to say on the subject. 93% enough said.

 

But 93% is very good? Especially since it should only be one layer of defense.

 

Interesting discussion. I think the user interaction aspect of an AV is an one important element in selecting the best protection for your situation. At the moment i would eb concerned having an AV with high requirement for user interaction in our household, based on the type of user.

I'm a fairly savvy user and would be very cautious with user interactions on AVs where the AV is saying "not sure about this file - proceed with caution - do you really want to open this? Click Yes or No?". However - i share a laptop with my wife who often shouts me from our dining room table with "can you come over and look at this?" - after she has clicked YES to install some AV scam or other. I also have a son who is 6 who gets supervised time but again he really wouldn't be giving much consideration to user interaction choices posed by the AV. So at the moment in selecting the best AV for my circumstances i am balancing detection, load on the laptop (struggles with KIS, better with WSA), and ease of use/minimal or no user interaction. MSE is often mentioned as minimal/no interaction, and although it has poor 0-day, I have also found that McAfee 'speaks' to the ordinary person in a clear way and is pretty quiet but 0-day results are poor and only updates once a day.

Great being here at Wilders, feel i am learning loads from you guys.

 

really!? these tests dont replicate real life usage in any damn way alright...again its important to know what are your and your users browsing habits?? and with what you get infected with?? is the particular infection wide-spread?? you again lose the whole point..

even if its 93% blocked..what about 6% user dependent...just stop bashing avast just because you got a very good chance to do so..

Not to mention you may want to look here and change your opinions..essentially if you want to:
http://www.virusbtn.com/vb100/RAP/RAP-quadrant-Feb-Aug12-12.jpg
http://www.av-test.org/no_cache/en/tests/test-reports/?tx_avtestreports_pi1[report_no]=121871

So this is just AV-C

 

if you would look at latest results of av-test you would see that avast has 93% also there. On av-c avast has additionally also user-dependent scores, so even better than at av-test. But likely you knew that and that us why you point users to an older test of av-test...

 

I have had reasons to switch AVs, but never had any reason to have the slightest doubts that AV-C tests are as fair and accurate as can be done.

When someone does not like the results he tends to say the test is garbage or does not approximate the real world. If not then run your own, publish the results and methodology, and let it stand the scrutiny of experts. (I am not one.)

It would be impossible to duplicate the surfing habits, and carelessness of all users. But that in no way negates the methodology and results that we see on AV-C.

There are some here who would not trust any test, and say to run your own tests.
That is non-sense. An extremely small number of people have the facilities, manpower, and expertise to make meaningful tests.

I will continue to trust, and make decisions influenced by AV-C tests results. Each is free to do as he pleases. I am reminded of a saying,"Them that can, do. Them that can't are critics."

Regards,
Jerry

 

Firefox, or rather Google, is flagging up AV-C as an attack site right now. Hope they sort that.

 

Hmmm -http://www.av-comparatives.org/- is loading just fine here in Safari wich is using the same Google "safebrowsing" data as Firefox.

I guess that we are not on the same "safebrowsing update" either I have an old update, or you got a newer one

 

Info was updated 2 hours ago: http://safebrowsing.clients.google....hl=en-US&site=http://www.av-comparatives.org/

Of course, by time others read this, situation may well be corrected. I hope so anyway.

 

Right, yeah I hope so too. Though this makes me.....

 

Just clicked the link and Chrome reported it as a malware infected site/link.

 

I'm in.............................

 

Just tried entering the site and Firefox flags it.

 

Yes that is true about the updates, but as with all AV products this is irrelevant as they all use cloud based technologies to plug the gaps. So you are in essence still receiving real time updates, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, etc etc.

 

I went to AV-Comparatives and ignored the Chrome warning, my computer is now a brick

Lol, just kidding. Nothing bad happened. Not sure why the malware warning is there. Neither Avast! nor BitDefender TL found anything, and nothing was blocked by AppGuard.

 

After this month's av-c chart..I have lost faith in these tests..How did mcafee do better than eset and trend micro did a 100%

 

things change all the time. or you can think it's all a conspiracy...

 

Im curious to know why over at the windows 7 forums they do not recommend using avast as apparently it is harmful to some of the windows os componenets.
Any ideas on this as ive used avast myself and find it is a very good AV.

Just wondered why they dont recommend it.

 

Were they using a version of McAfee with SiteAdvisor LIVE? This doesn't seem to be in McAfee 'Internet Security' but is included in the 'Total Protection' version. Apparently the LIVE version specifically targets phishing sites/links?

From the McAfee website:

McAfee® SiteAdvisor™ software provides you with simple red, yellow and green Website safety ratings, McAfee SECURE trustmarks for sites passing more rigorous daily tests, and a Secure Search Box so you can click with confidence and safely surf, search and shop online.

McAfee® SiteAdvisor™ Live goes beyond safe searching and browsing to provide active, real-time, comprehensive protection from sites that can compromise your identity and your PC. Benefit from advanced phishing protection, link checking in e-mails and instant messages, and `protected mode´ to disable interaction with dangerous sites.