AV-Test Certifications for the 1st Quarter 2011 (Windows 7)

Discussion in 'other anti-virus software' started by King Grub, Apr 15, 2011.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Thankful

    Thankful Savings Monitor

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2005
    Posts:
    5,967
    Location:
    New York City
    Eset always scores poorly in detection with AV-Test.org.
     
  2. Matthijs5nl

    Matthijs5nl Guest

    avast! solution is still pretty vague to be honest, those autosandboxing decisions are made based on heuristics and community mostly, with some assistance from the behavioral shield. But the behavioral shield is still kind of non-existing even after several months of gathering data in the community. Remember what vlk said? Give us two months so we can gather data for the autosandboxing decisions. Also behavior shield has been set to allow for the entire version 5 life cycle.
    I do agree that autosandboxing is finally showing some potential now, but it still hasn't convinced me, just like the behavioral shield.

    To avoid any confusion, I really like avast!.
     
  3. harsha_mic

    harsha_mic Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2009
    Posts:
    815
    Location:
    India
    if we look at the results of eset in virustotal, it usually catches malware when many misses them and ofcourse vice-versa some times ...
    just search in google with

    nod32 site:virustotal.com

    and query for past 24 hours only.. :)
     
  4. harsha_mic

    harsha_mic Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2009
    Posts:
    815
    Location:
    India
    yeah i do agree with you.
    Need to see what NOD32's suspicious monitoring would bring..
     
  5. Nevis

    Nevis Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2010
    Posts:
    812
    Location:
    255.255.255.255

    do not make conclusions based on this ... this is what creates misconceptions
     
  6. harsha_mic

    harsha_mic Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2009
    Posts:
    815
    Location:
    India
    hmm...i agree with you. Its just tells what a portion (on demand scanner) of AV can do..

    but because of nature of threats emerging daily (or we can say minute by minute), the results can be made up side down easily...
     
  7. 1000db

    1000db Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2009
    Posts:
    718
    Location:
    Missouri
    F-Secure uses BitDefender as one of their engines. We use F-Secure where I work and it's been very reliable for me. Some people freak out over the amount of processes it runs though; 9 I believe. However even with that many processes running it has been very light on even my laptop.
     
  8. smage

    smage Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2008
    Posts:
    378
    Hello,

    Anyone knows whether this test "Protection against 0-day malware attacks from the internet inclusive of web and e-mail threats(Real- World Testing)" is a dynamic or static test?

    Thanks
     
  9. xorrior

    xorrior Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    Posts:
    66
    An ESET rep says the test was of a version released while they weren't using the kewl robot advertisement, so the engine is marginally ineffective.

    Don't shoot the messenger..
     
  10. RejZoR

    RejZoR Lurker

    Joined:
    May 31, 2004
    Posts:
    6,426
    Also from my own testing Network Shield covers like 95% of all web based threats. When i'm testing the engine itself i always have to disable Network Shield to even get malware hitting File System Shield. That's why i rarely see anything getting past avast! in real world conditions because all the shields compliment eachother.
     
  11. carat

    carat Guest

    Avast poor protection as usual :thumbd:

    Well done AVG :)
     
  12. Matthijs5nl

    Matthijs5nl Guest

    Indeed, when I want to install an light and simple antivirus I usually install avast! but only install the File System Shield, Web Shield and Network Shield.
     
  13. sg09

    sg09 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2009
    Posts:
    2,808
    Location:
    Kolkata, India
    In my experience Avast always top in protection....:) and this time with lowest FP this time...:)
     
  14. xorrior

    xorrior Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    Posts:
    66
    Don't get caught in a social vortex. Earlier today I seen the top scorer in this test fail to detect a dropper and 80 elements, then later seen it be 'killed'. We could all say something good about any product here..
     
  15. sg09

    sg09 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2009
    Posts:
    2,808
    Location:
    Kolkata, India
    Well said...:thumb:
     
  16. harsha_mic

    harsha_mic Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2009
    Posts:
    815
    Location:
    India
    out of curiosity, could you shed more light on it...
     
  17. Cutting_Edgetech

    Cutting_Edgetech Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2006
    Posts:
    5,653
    Location:
    USA
    Eset scored bad in this test. Didn't Eset score bad in this test last time as well? Blocking of Malware on or post execution really brought their score down. They only blocked 34% when the industry average is 62%. They used 29 samples. I believe this is the same area that got them the last time.
     
    Last edited: Apr 15, 2011
  18. Thankful

    Thankful Savings Monitor

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2005
    Posts:
    5,967
    Location:
    New York City
  19. Cutting_Edgetech

    Cutting_Edgetech Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2006
    Posts:
    5,653
    Location:
    USA
    These are the type of test I like to see because of the areas tested, but I would suggest they use more samples next time. I think their test would hold much more weight if they used more samples.
     
  20. MalwareDie

    MalwareDie Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2006
    Posts:
    500
    I always take results from AV-Test with a grain of salt, especially with AVG's supposed high protection rate.
     
  21. Duradel

    Duradel Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2010
    Posts:
    363
    Location:
    Melbourne, Australia
    BitDefender IS 2011 scored an Advanced rating on AV-C's whole product dynamic test. Detection wise it scored badly, in fact the only two products that did worse are Norman and Kingsoft.

    Which set of tests would be more accurate?
     
  22. elapsed

    elapsed Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2004
    Posts:
    7,076
    I am *extremely* skeptical of a test that would give 100% to a product for 0day detection.

    BitDefender: Apparently scored 100% 0-day in January, 97 in February and 98 in March. This sounds extremely bogus. For 0-day detection AV just plain sucks. The average AV is doing GOOD if it can scrape 80% 0-day.

    MSE: Seems to average at 70-80% detection when compared to previous months and suddenly slammed to 50% in march, did MS break something or just more things to be skeptical of?

    GData: An extremely good multi-engine AV being beaten by single engine AV's? Also, GData uses BitDefender and Avast yet scores lower?

    Call me a skeptic but I think I've had about enough of AV tests. -.-
     
  23. SweX

    SweX Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2007
    Posts:
    6,429
    Congrats indeed to Bitdefender, they impress me more and more.
    One can wonder what they have been doing behinde the scenes :shifty:

    And regarding ESET, for some reason they rarely do well in AV-Test testing:doubt:
    But I got a feeling version 5.0 will perform better.

    But AVG, F-Secure, G-Data, Kaspersky, Panda, and Symantec did good as well :thumb:
     
  24. Noob

    Noob Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2009
    Posts:
    6,491
    Nice to look at but lots to think of. :D
     
  25. SweX

    SweX Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2007
    Posts:
    6,429
    But this test is just one of many :)
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.