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. littlebits

    littlebits Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2006
    Posts:
    262
    Yes I did because I thought it would make it faster but I was wrong, I saw no difference.

    Thanks.:D
     
  2. malexous

    malexous Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2010
    Posts:
    830
    Location:
    Ireland
  3. guest

    guest Guest

    This test is a shame, why a product with a 100% in the dynamic test is not certified? with a 100% you don't need any repair who care about how good is the repair?

    Many products that allow your computer being infected are certified and 1 product that protects against the 100% of the malware in a dynamic test (real test type) is not...


    By the way the detection rates of some products against 0day malware smells bad, probably they were not using 0 day malware at all.
     
  4. Narxis

    Narxis Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2009
    Posts:
    477
    Repair is important when you want to restore an already infected system.
     
  5. guest

    guest Guest

    Which av is gonna clean your system if it lets the malware infect your system? none. You are always going to use other apps to clean it or call to the support of the av to do it. The relevance shouldn't be the same. I think this test is totally bad balanced

    Why mix some obsolete tests like detection test with real test like the dynamic ones?

    it's like an AV that scores a 100% in the dynamic test by avcomparatives here is not certified, because the interface or the repair abilities.

    Anyway, this is just my opinion, with this scoring system you can make look good to any AV.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 28, 2011
  6. fax

    fax Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2005
    Posts:
    3,899
    Location:
    localhost
    was there a case of 100% detection? I could not find it o_O
     
  7. trjam

    trjam Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2006
    Posts:
    9,102
    Location:
    North Carolina USA
    I agree but how do you, really know, it repaired it correctly and didnt leave remnants.
     
  8. guest

    guest Guest

    Comodo if I remember well
     
  9. Narxis

    Narxis Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2009
    Posts:
    477

    That is why repair needs improvements every year and that is why the are testing the products in this way. The optimal situation would be if i dont need to download a bunch of other tools to remove viruses.
     
  10. Rampastein

    Rampastein Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2009
    Posts:
    290
    KAV has done it twice for me (with malware that infected the system before I installed KAV), although I've always verified manually that no serious traces were left. I agree that they should've given much more importance for the dynamic testing part though, but detection, repairing and usability is important too.
     
  11. guest

    guest Guest

    So KAV didn't do it because you haven't it installed when your pc got infected.
     
  12. The Hammer

    The Hammer Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2005
    Posts:
    5,751
    Location:
    Toronto Canada
    I would assume that in future Avira's Protection and Repair scores will go up with the release of SP2.
     
  13. fax

    fax Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2005
    Posts:
    3,899
    Location:
    localhost
    It is tested but no 100% detection... 4.0 points out of 6. So which one?
     
  14. Rampastein

    Rampastein Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2009
    Posts:
    290
    Ah, you meant it like that. Well, I think it's possible that if an AV lets malware infect the computer, that malware will be detected after future signature updates and then comes the repairing part.
     
  15. guest

    guest Guest

    Again, Comodo has 100% in the dynamic testing.
    In the real world test if there is any file left by the sandbox they count it like a bypass (if I remember well) although there is no malware active in the computer during the test or after restart it, so for me this does not count, especially when this useless malware can be detected and deleted in any on-demand scan some days later.
    A bypass is when your computer is infected not when there are some deactivated and useless rests of a malware.
    Would be nice to have a document with the methodology explained, I can't find it on the web, but probably does not exists.

    All this is just my point of view, you can agree or not xD
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 29, 2011
  16. fax

    fax Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2005
    Posts:
    3,899
    Location:
    localhost
    Ok.. I see.. you don't have access to the methodology used for scoring so you assume that the failure on protecting from 0day threats is likely not a failure.
     
  17. guest

    guest Guest

    No, the last time I asked them about the methodology they told me that the traces left by any malware although not active were count like a fail.
    But I shouldn't need to ask them because this kind of info should be available.
     
  18. fax

    fax Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2005
    Posts:
    3,899
    Location:
    localhost
    Sorry, nothing personal but the methodology seems not public (at least I could not find it) so still please allow me the benefit of the doubt on this 'left overs' consideration and the 100%. And even if this was the case, the criteria is applied to all products tested, so they are all on the same boat.
     
  19. malexous

    malexous Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2010
    Posts:
    830
    Location:
    Ireland
    They plan to publish the methodology eventually. guest is correct, leftovers count as a fail.
     
  20. fax

    fax Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2005
    Posts:
    3,899
    Location:
    localhost
    So, looking forward to the methodology. Establishing a certification system, testing commercial software and 'market' results without giving open access to the method is not impressive to say the least. :)
     
  21. guest

    guest Guest

    They also told me that on the 1st or 2nd quarter of 2010
     
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.