AV-Comparatives Whole Product Real World Protection Test Results of October! 2012

The thing I dislike about the AV labs is that they ignore many other factors; one being useability with varying user populations.

Search the web and go to the Bitdefender forum and assess comments on how it impacts users PCs. Many negative comments in that area.

I don't know what to make of these recent Trendmicro results. It appears they have beefed up their real time protection. OK. But that is only a part of the overall security effectiveness equation.

 

Thanks for the update.

 

From what I read off the information in the AV-C fact pdfs, these real world tests use all of a product's on-access features? It states the use of URLs to infect the machine. That would mean Trend Micro blocked a majority of the links through it's web protection?

Cheers to their web blocker. It always impresses us.

 

+1

I think it's the first time it has better results than Panda.

 

Oh that's great. Glad to know you guys are working on automating the action without any fps. And hopefully WSA will score great in the next test.

 

I guess that explains the difference between Bitdefender and Bullguard, too...

 

Yeah I guess

 

Agree, I also don't see Emsisoft or Panda. Bet they would have scored good too.

 

Look again

 

About Norton (Symantec), their last result in this test was 100% during November 2011. Their total score for 2011 was 99.6%, including 0.4% user dependent.

 

I don't think Emsisoft will participate in these tests anytime soon.

 

Are there any talks of an English version of Qihoo? 5 engines, light, and free makes me almost want to learn Chinese.

 

Kaspersky? Uh no, as far as I know there is no Kaspersky in Qihoo. Qihoo uses BD, Avira, and the other three are developed in-house. Plus, they have their own cloud. Cool, eh?

Baidu used the Kaspersky engine, not Qihoo.

No, absolutely zero talks of porting their products to english. Chinese is hard to learn to be honest but give it a shot if you're extremely determined.

 

Yesterday I selected a web site that WOT gave a high confidence rating on. Norton AV 2012 immediately detected Web Attack: Mass Injection Website using one of its signatures. Subsequent scanning of the URL with multiple URL scanners including Sucuri said web site was safe. Zulu however rated site as suspicious.

This was one more more instance where Norton saved my butt. So the fact that Symantec chose to bow out of AV-Comparatives tests is immaterial to me.

 

The November results are up; same link as in the first post.

 

Good results for all products average. Bitdefender and TrendMicro strike again at the very top of the list. Avira is improving compared to previous months. GData 100% effective too.

 

Great results from all BitDefender engine products. TrendMicro has done well, and so have Webroot and PC Tools if you consider the explanation given by PrevXHelp (it also applies to ThreatFire - it gives the chance for allowing once; but if the alert is ignored, it stays blocked). AVG continues to do decently.

It's eScan that is surprising - out of all these products, eScan is the only one that doesn't have a behaviour blocker enabled by default. It still did very well, which means either BitDefender's signatures, or the URL filters/other guards are very good in this product. Not to mention they got Windows 8 compatibility out VERY quickly if I remember correctly!

 

Thanks King Grub.

 

gdata, bd, and trend all 100%. bullguard and f-secure are just shy of 100% wow i wonder how many others soon will follow it seems the av's are starting to really catch up to the malware (for now at least)... avira did awesome at a combined 99.6, and wow to the webroot haters... if they automate the process more looks like they will be near the top very soon.

 

Yes, Avira is definitely improving, and considering how light it is these results are excellent.

 

I'm with you there.It looks to be a highly capable product and was certainly resource friendly when I tried it.Alas I didn't have a clue what options and settings are available;the only hope would be for someone fluent in Chinese to provide a translated user guide for English speakers

 

I'm a bit disappointed with Panda. Statistically they are pretty low through this year and monthly they aren't much better. I also wonder if behavior blocker and behavior analysis even do anything. In the past behavior blocker blocked quite some stuff but now i've never seen it do anything. If it was a signature miss it was a complete miss. I've never to date seen behavior analysis in action which should basically be TruPrevent...

 

i was testing panda is and i actually had to many things get through i sent them the samples which they did add reasonably quickly but it did let to much through for me in my testing. and i did not see anything from the behavior shield pop up either with other samples.

 

That means they had something to hide

 

Norton is excellent when connected to the Internet. Without a connection detection is not stellar, in terms of marketing they probably prefer not to be tested in those circumstances.