Discussion in 'other anti-virus software' started by King Grub, Apr 15, 2011.
Eset always scores poorly in detection with AV-Test.org.
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!.
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
and query for past 24 hours only..
yeah i do agree with you.
Need to see what NOD32's suspicious monitoring would bring..
do not make conclusions based on this ... this is what creates misconceptions
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...
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.
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?
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..
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.
Avast poor protection as usual
Well done AVG
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.
In my experience Avast always top in protection.... and this time with lowest FP this time...
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..
out of curiosity, could you shed more light on it...
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.
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.
I always take results from AV-Test with a grain of salt, especially with AVG's supposed high protection rate.
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?
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. -.-
Congrats indeed to Bitdefender, they impress me more and more.
One can wonder what they have been doing behinde the scenes
And regarding ESET, for some reason they rarely do well in AV-Test testing
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
Nice to look at but lots to think of.
But this test is just one of many
Separate names with a comma.