AV Dynamic test 2010 by eKaitse

eKaitse if a website that does AV testing out of Estonia.
It's a dynamic test with a sample size of 100.

www.ekaitse.ee

http://www.ekaitse.ee/EKAITSE_TORJETEST_2010_ENG.pdf

 

Affiliated with Comodo or what? This reminds me Symantec independent tests of Norton

 

I don't know if this one is sponsored is not written, anyway if you test Comodo by yourself you will see how easily you can experience the same result, I don't know about the other products but this result of Comodo IS is not a surprise for me or for anyone that have made some tests with it.

 

I was just teasing

 

So according to this test except comodo all other freewares are not performing well as the paid ones but in av comparatives they are performing better

 

You are comparing free av's vs paid av's of the same brand in different tests, seems to be quite logical that the paid product scores better.
This test include the free AV if is avaliable of different vendors.
In AVComparatives all the products tested are paid AV's, so if you are comparing the paid vs the free one of the same brand probably the paid one will perform better.

Only the results of Norton and Panda are weird but this is probably because of the sample size.

 

For a completely unbiased report would the VT results for posted samples over at MBAM's forum "Newest Malware Threats" be a better source of detections.

 

Oh ya my mistake..they are testing paid...looks like have to give comodo whole suite another go

 

I found this.

 

Remember that the 100% of Comodo is not because Comodo AV is excellent it is because of the easy sandbox included. You can always install Comodo IS without the AV and use any other AV.

If you are an average use you will find Comodo an excellent app, if you are a noob with the computer you should use a traditional AV.

 

Very strange results in my opinion - honestly.

One of the site's maintainer is a Comodo forum regular and a fan.
He also translated the test on Melih's request. Not implying but stating facts that might give a little insight to people that don't visit Comodo forums.

It's a good thing Comodo did well - but I have to admit that the rest of the results seem very odd.

I wish people left testing to the accredited and professionals. A good methodology is needed to erradicate margin of error and bias.

 

No, not really.
Virustotal result shoulndt be consdered as serious test.
Most of the serious testers, malware analysts and vendors themselves already mentioned it many times. That detections on virustotal aren't correct.
One of the reasons is the fact that it only scans for on demand.
And a lot of vendors say their product performs better on blocking of execution.
Secondly on virustotal tests engines like behaviour blocker are skipped.
So, in my opinion virustotal tests shouldn't be considered as serious tests.

 

The results seems quite normal for all the products except Panda and Norton but this is probably because of the sample size.

The problem is that this test is done with free apps.
Per example Avira Free, Avast free, AVG free were tested, but in AV Comparatives or in almost any other test they always test the paid versions.

Avira Free does not have AntiVirProActiv, AntiBot, the updates are less frequent...
You can not compare Avira free vs Paid and expect the same results

http://www.virustotal.com/about.html

 

Let's see Comodo tested by AV-Comparatives. Comodo forum members have said the same thing.

 

As far as I know avast participates with free version of their product on AVComparatives

 

http://www.av-comparatives.org/comparativesreviews/dynamic-tests
In the report of the dynamic test of AVComparatives is written Avast internet security, in fact all the products tested are paid.

 

Probably I was mistaken with on-demand and proactive tests

btw, on that dynamic test they specificly mention that for the test they are going to use Internet Security products.

 

I think these results look pretty believable, including the 100% from Comodo. The only thing that is odd, is I have never seen Norton do so poorly. I almost have to wonder if they turned off Sonar or DL Insight. That is the only oddball I see in the rankings.

 

At the on-demand test they use free products because the only element tested is the AV heuristics and definitions, so the free edition is enough, the behaviour blocker, HIPS, url blocker... or other kind of specific protections are usually only in the paid products and they are not used in an on-demand test.

The products were tested with the default settings, yes is odd for Norton and Panda, I really dont belive it, maybe a bad day, or the little sample size.

 

In the real world, nothing scores 100%.

 

I think this is why AMTSO was set up to try and standardise such tests. Hopefully, individuals and groups who do such testing will abide by the guidelines and recommendations put forward by AMTSO.

 

Regardless their methodology or the results anything bellow a thousand samples is a joke in my book

 

I don't doubt the 100% score on malware. However they didn't test how many good files were removed or sandboxed by CIS.

 

Comodo will certainly block 100% (or 99.999%) of malware everytime, thanks to its Sandbox and Defence+.

This will happen either with 100 or 10.000 samples.
Vladimyr pointed something interesting. Comodo still needs to add to its whitelist and safe vendors list, more apps.
Otherwise it will still blocks some legit files and drivers.

For me there are only 2 strange results: VIPRE and Norton.

 

What I see is ... all tested applications are AntiVirus but CIS is InterNet Security ... for example why didn't test KIS2011? with HIPS ... did They use the Kaspersky Secure Mode for applications (SandBox environment)? ... I think this is not a test in similar conditions for all the applications tested ...

Regards.