AV-Test Product Review and Certification Report - 2010/Q2

not really, in the first test the malware were basically trojans, which the product is good at detecting. n the second test Script malware was used which this product stinks at. Not to hard to make tests work for you.

 

Excuse me but the test is completely acurate even though performed with less samples than AVC uses (for example).

In my opinion it proves what we all know from real-life (but some don't want to admit) :
products that are currently with low detection and protection capabilities:

products with high detection and protection capabilities:

http://www.virusbtn.com/news/2010/08_16a.xml

What you say for the samples is not true and it just an anecdote. This is not valid for Internet security types of Gdata , Symantec , Kaspersky , Panda - they are always on top these days and will definitely miss few.

Just start working with infected computer - you'll see I'm right. This type of testing is the one that should be performed - using all product features. It is another topic that we don't know methodology used in details but lol , this is AV-Test.org , not LanGuy99

 

The main point, not to be overlooked, is 13/19 products fulfilled the requirements of
AV-test.

 

Not to be beligerent but are you saying that the basic rules of statistical analysis are only anecdotal?

 

i love very much eset nod32
but in this year very bad work
why

:-(

 

Just my opinion ... there are many factors but the fall started with the company changes with the release of version 3 , continued with the release of v4 . Then the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_crisis_of_2007–2010 started and probably caused some issues . And there are also many other reasons (such as bad support , not enough employees , bad pricing , etc) which are not for a forum discussion. More or less , nowadays you need a lot of money $ and human resourses to be able to be on top. In every aspect of life you need money and it will turn out that only big fishes will survive . Just my 0.02

 

It seems to be much better than the Avast BB - I hope Avast will improve their BB soon!

 

Perhaps true, but the aim of this whole product dynamic test is to simulate and to assess a user’s real-world experience. So, the issue of when updates are issued is not something that should be “averaged” because it does impact the actual quality of malware protection provided.

 

Nice Who is this dude that hijacked youtube anyway?

Regarding test methodology what i have to say is that competitors disclose theirs so i see no aparent reason for them (AV-Test) not to do the same.

 

To add some perspective on the issue of a sample size of 16, note that the performance of the anti-malware product on “blocking of malware on or post execution” is a subscore of one dimension (“protection”) within the entire test. It is not wise to dissect and to place too much emphasis on a single subscore.

Remember to keep the ‘big picture’ in mind: the thrust of the test is to determine if an anti-malware product meets the certification standards of AV-Test by examining the totality of the product’s performance across all the facets of the test.

 

.. but they ALL still miss, it's just a cat and mouse game with malware (unfortunately we don't seem to be winning). If people want real world, look at the vendors official support forum and see the amount of people asking for removal help.

 

There is no need for you to worry.
I understand perfectly well what was tested.
I just wonder about several different aspects; the marginal sample set of 16 which was collected for a test which in total stretched over a period of 3 months.
The fact that G-DATA 2010 and G-DATA 2011 test results have been mixed together, apparantly indistinctively as far as anyone can tell from the publicly available PDF's.
The fact that system impact/usability has been tested for completely different products as in AV, AM+AV and complete security suites.

Do you know for what percentage the 'Blocking of malware on/post execution' part actually counts in the final protection score?
That's something I don't know.

 

And, when you look at those forums, keep in mind how few threads exist as compared to the total number of users of the product. Of course, no anti-malware product is perfect; but using one is an important layer of protection, in my opinion.

 

It appears that the subtotals (each with a maximum of six points) for the three dimensions (protection, repair, usability) were added, and a score at or above 12 was considered a passing grade for certification. How the subscores within a dimension were aggregated together isn’t clear, however.

 

I think their mods will tell you no product can catch 100% of malware. Even though such a statement is true but I come to realize it is their favorite excuse.
I know it is no consolation to you, but what else can I say. Be strong and stay safe and wait for Eset Smart Security 5.

Thanks.

 

That is not always true. For example Malwarebytes always saves Eset when Eset is in a tight spot with entrenched malware that install under Eset protection. And yet Malwarebytes as a company does not have as many resources as Eset's.

 

Also keep in mind, it sometimes isnt the product you use but, the places you venture, that play the most important role in not getting infected.

 

Malwarebytes saves everybodys butt.

 

I'm not saying it isn't.

It's not just seen at the Eset forum. This is a common statement seen at all vendor forums.

 

Well, sure no product catches 100% but i've noticed more people with ESET have got viruses and then they run to complain

 

You've got a front row seat for a forum you wouldn't normally see elsewhere unless you used the product, and you find the same sort of stuff in every vendors forum. By the way I hope Emsisoft doesn't cause you to 'run to complain", These complaints about it have been echoed elsewhere. http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2364196,00.asp

 

The situatuion between ESET and Malwarebytes is completely different . It is also different between any AV company and Malwarebytes and a company.

Malwarebytes is a product used by all the anti-malware community . It is free. Malwarebytes' Anti-Malware is very simple product as a program. And it has many more resourses than ESET (I believe) because the product is used by many more people than NOD32/ESS and there are extremely big community (visible and hidden) they have to receive samples .Many more people work with MBAM (even invisibly) than with ESET. Additionally , I must note that MBAM and any other AV vendor can't be comparated because MBAM doesn't cover all kind of malware.

You need resourses and money - I still believe in that.

 

Which Internet Security better ESET or AVG? In 2009 ESET has Bronze award from av comparatives.AVG has not awards at all. Virus Bulletin test 2010 AVG is one of the top Internet Security.

 

I've never had a problem with Nod32 but I always had the heuristics maxed out. There are some good reasons to like Nod- it's light, integrates well with most other programs and there are few false positives. One of the reasons I hated using Nod was that if any problems arose I would need to post something in their forum- which usually led to a bunch of smart aleck remarks from fanboys. I think there is some negative posts about Nod partly because it's perceived among many as the best antivirus ever. But then after some use and research you realize it's just another upper tier av with its good and bad points.

 

I disagree.

I disagree.

Depends on your clarification of few.

But every product has that and is 0 reason to dislike a product. You should dislike a product for genuine reasons not fanboys