AV-Comparatives Whole Product Dynamic Tests updated

Running two real time security solutions defiantly is not recommended, even the free versions leave some background processes running, and can cause conflicts. see thread: http://forum.bitdefender.com/index.php?sho...p;=Malwarebytes

I also had KIS before Bitdefender and it also asks me to uninstall MBAM. What's up with you and MBAM anyway these big Antivirus programs don't even need anything else to keep you safe! Look at the AV comparatives results for god's sake! IF you have an MBAM fetish then by all means go use it and choose another Antivirus but making an assumption that an Antivirus/Security Suite is bad because it asks you to remove MBAM is plain dumb and just comes to show your level of knowledge about computers!

I own a lifetime MBAM Pro License but I just bought it out of support for the developer but it is not required with such great antivirus solutions!

If you MUSt install MBAM, then you can do so AFTER you install Bitdefender Internet Security or Kaspersky Internet Security then setup exclusions but this is an absolute waste of system resources and simply is asking for trouble even if they would work together, but having 2 security programs scan the same file is just insane and overkill. Especially if you are talking about such great security solutions that have protected me and others for years without relying on any other program.

TheMozart = Forum Troll, ignore him guys

 

Agree berryracer ..

 

MSE is dependable. If you couple it with Mamutu, then it's a rock-solid combination. I tried them both together for months without any infection.

 

Agreed

 

It's good to see F-Secure performing among the top of the list this year as it has for several years in a row. I have read that it uses BD for one of it's AV engines but there is much more to it than just the BD engine. I kind of like the firewall and its Deepguard feature has worked great to detect sudden changes in programs that are not yet auto recognized in its white listed program updates.

After using F-Secure Internet Security on all my systems for the past few months I have determined that it is the leanest, most trouble free AV I have ever used... EVER... going back two decades to the Windows 95/98 days when Norton and McAfee were the AVs to use. The former NOD32 v2.7.x is a close second on my all time list to the latest F-Secure AV as part of its Internet Security suite. I am absolutely thrilled with how it has performed on all my older systems (ten year old Athlon XP systems with 2GB RAM). The only part of the program that leaves something to be desired is the anti-spam email feature which is not as good as ones I have used with other security suites in the past. I have F-Secure for Mac also installed on my new OSX Lion Mac mini system and so far it has been completely lean on resources and trouble free also.

On my Windows XP Pro SP3 systems I set up the exclusions lists in F-Secure (there are two lists in the AV settings), MBAM Pro and SAS Pro. Everything is excluded from everything else for real time and for scheduled scanning. I run all three security programs in real time with no problems. I temporarily disabled the real time in SAS and MBAM before installing it. F-Secure does automatically uninstall MBAM without warning during it's installation phase so make sure you have your MBAM license key written down before installing F-Secure on a system with MBAM Pro. After MBAM Pro was auto uninstalled by F-Secure and F-Secure was fully installed I just ran the special MBAM trace removal cleaner and then reinstalled MBAM Pro with no problems. The MBAM web site and forum have helpful tips as to what files and folders to exclude in the exclusion lists.

 

Understood, thank you.

 

Yes.

 

hi.. does anybody know these tests were hold on win7 or xp ?
thnx.

 

TheMozart, I was reading through the previous posts and thought it might be good to let everyone know my recent experience with F-Secure Internet Security 2012 and how I am able to run it with both MBAM Pro and SAS Pro with all of them running in real time together in Windows XP Pro SP3 without conflicts. Just remember being warned that during it's installation F-Secure will auto uninstall MBAM even though they seem to run fine along side each other after adding each other to their respective exclusions lists. It did take a bit of time to get all three programs excluded from each other (I excluded all the various exe files of each of the programs along with the main folders just to be sure) but it was worth it. I am also a big fan of MBAM Pro but it also is important to have a quality AV or security suite that is compatible with it. While BD tested at the very top and that makes it a very attractive solution you also get the BD core AV definitions when you use F-Secure. If you haven't already tried this setup and you are determined to run MBAM Pro in real time this combination is one to consider.

 

Berryracer, please stop labeling people who disagree with your narrow view of computer security. You aren't exactly neutral about BD, as evidenced by your "I love my BD IS" thread.

You based your advice to only use one product on something you read at the BitDefender forum? I take strong exception to the idea that more than one security product is overkill. I believe it is mandatory for most people if you rely on real-time/scanner based products.

There are many examples of multiple security products running well together - just look at some member's sig lines. If you only run one AV or suite you only get one opinion, based on what that single product can find at that moment. Having two (or more) programs scan the same file is not insane or overkill, its a good idea. Even if one of the products has BitDefender's currently excellent detection rates.

You are also depending on BD to maintain those high detection rates throughout the life of your subscription. Is it possible that they could miss some things in the future? Are you good enough at manual detection and removal to know if you are truly malware -free without a second (or third or fourth) opinion?

 

if they continue on the track they are on with bd2013 i can say they may be worth a second look. i am testing bd2013 on one laptop i have and i have even admitted in another thread its FAR better than 2012 version though it still caused a couple bsod for me during heavy cpu use on that laptop.... once during a convertxtodvd session and another having a lot of programs open at once with maybe a dozen tabs in firefox..other than that its been great still MUCH heavier than the likes of avast or eset or even avg honestly..so im not entirely saying dont use bd but be careful with it on a machine with important info i say this about avg also since i have seen a few times it updated a left the end user with a bsod loop that i was able to fix for them but shouldnt have happened.

this was in response to a message i got about my words against bd.. isay congrats on detection but please work on the programing end of things..ans i still stick to my thoughts of mse sorry but WAY WAY to many infected pc's that come into the shop which were running mse...

on the subject of mbam, i will personally use mbam as a second opinion at times. i dont it real time though. i also use cureit and sometimes others to check to see if my normal av maybe did miss something.. and honestly the fact of the matter is mbam is probably the best there is for a certain type of malware especially rouges imo i dont think anything compares to it for a certain types of malware..

even with a bit lower results though i have to say for me eset has caught everything on my systems including a couple rouges that tried installing. i base my use on real world use of a av. while i love testing and seeing these results to me they are more of maybe a starting point for someone looking for a av.. i want to see how a av protects day to day and the only way to do that is to use it for a while and see how it does ON YOUR SYSTEM.. not every av that one person raves about will be the best for someone else.

 

I tried Bitdefender once and it was a nightmare. Apart from the installation problems, the GUI looks so busy and weird. Hated it!

 

"once" u mean when ? and what's wrong with it ?

 

I have seen MBAM and SAS catch things that the big suites didn't. I prefer to have a belt and suspenders, so I use KIS with SAS (not real-time). I let SAS do a scan once a week.

While I agree that slamming an AV/IS package because it makes you remove MBAM isn't right, surely there are more polite ways of saying that.

 

A few months ago (2012 version). It was a nightmare to install and the GUI is not only ugly, but it looks busy and sophisticated. I prefer a more simplistic look and feel.

 

With Bitdefender you get a new GUI every year - only the bugs remain

 

Is it still light? Still feel the same? Just curious...been running BIS 2012 and thought I might compare it to 2013 beta.....

 

I've been running BD 2013 over a week now and IMHO it's far lighter than 2012.
Their web guard / cloud protection blocks everything, can't get anything through!

2013 version still has some bugs, of course.. it's beta but it's amazing and light.

 

sure people'v got various desires .. but when it comes to me i choose something like CIS for its extreme complexity .. and i include it in the advanced AV group.. i suppose with this kind of viewpoint something like MSE or Bullguard or Ikarus unbelievably meets your requirements.

Nowadays it's been a mysterious question for me why in the previous tests in other famous companies like AV-Tests , there are such a difference between results of the tests were done in WinXp and Win7.. and also in some cases some AVs did better in XP lol

and is Symantec running from something , not participating ever again..! isn't that insulting manner from Symantec when kaspersky and other huge companies are participating and Norton says i don't consider your tests to be true..

 

I just love the look and feel of KIS 2012. Before that, I was using FIS 2012. It was also great.

 

lol
Actually, new GUI= more new errors.

Seriously, I have a question. Last time I used bit defender, it wanted me to have .net framework. Is that a requirement now also ?

Sorry if I am missing something but when did it said that. AFAIK, it did not participate in some test since it was not convinced with the real world applicability of those tests ( or in fact a bit afraid that it would score low in those test ) , hence AV-C did not allow it to participate selectively. It did not disprove of the test results.

 

hi..

what if its just an alibi for norton not to participate . i mean Symantec knows well that if he doesnt participate in one test ( e.x file detection ) AV-c wont let participate any other left tests..

btw we should not expect Symantec to express directly " we do not admit the AV-c tests result veracity " !!

take a look here :
http://community.norton.com/t5/Nort...in-AV-Comparatives-testing/m-p/676265#M197576
here:
http://community.norton.com/t5/Nort...in-AV-Comparatives-testing/m-p/673959#M197190

and here :
http://community.norton.com/t5/Nort...in-AV-Comparatives-testing/m-p/675501#M197470

and if u can take the time also the whole topic. not much :
http://community.norton.com/t5/Nort...in-AV-Comparatives-testing/td-p/672299/page/4

with respect..

Take care

 

Thanks for the links. I found some new things. I have a lot of things to say on that matter but I dont want to discuss this issue again as there is no point of it.

Lastly, Welcome Amin to wilders

 

YW..
u are right abt it ,, for us no point !!

i wish comodo was present in those tests .. no matter how terrible the results would be in file detection and FP tests but comodo would miss nothing from his popularity..esp with its powerfull FW.
also abt norton.. despite the fact that i know how costly these tests are for the companies that participate..

It's very CoOl of you saying that dude thnx..

with respect

good luck.

 

What "left tests"?