AV-Test Results for Nov/Dec Now Available

Discussion in 'other anti-virus software' started by De Hollander, Jan 14, 2013.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. er34

    er34 Guest

    :thumb: :thumb: :thumb:


    :thumb: :thumb: :thumb:


    Being ironic I might feel like this -> Oh my God, these tests, they ruined my day. What am I gonna do now? OMG, OMG !!!

    On the other hand I wonder how some people feel when they recommend programs which are placed number 1 in some strange "independent" tests - products that are :
    - so huge in size that takes all user's HDD
    - have the chance (even minimal) to slow down the computer
    - with the higher chance of false positives that can cause so much trouble
    - lacking professional and fast support or due to their complexity have the higher chance to cause the OS some trouble
    - products from company for 1 day, "fun for few years". Back in the years it was Kaspersky's fashion, then it was free AVG fashion, Spybot/Adware fashion, then it was NOD32 fashion, then it was Norton fashion, now it is BitDefender fashion. Fashion for some year or two. Microsoft has over 30 years strong history and good reputation of being among the first. History has proved that no matter the huge anti-MS criticism, no matter many have said it was going down, no matter they may be acting a bit slower and a bit behind in publishing some things, Microsoft always wades other vendors as a roller.

    Seriously talking, as elapsed, phyniks write above (I have also said it before), Microsoft's security strategy is different and doesn't fit these tests. And if you take the time yourself to test Microsoft security options and products, you'll see they are not bad at all -> Secure boot, Early launch Anti-Malware driver, Windows Defender/MSE, SmartScreen Filter for IE, Smart Screen Filter for Windows, Smart Screen Filter for junk mails, DEP, Driver signature enforcement, User Account Control, Protected and Enhanced protected mode for IE, own PDF reader/Flash player, Windows Update, Windows Firewall , etc.... No matter they are part of the OS and available for others, the AVs exist not to compete with each other but to fight the malware, to protect the more important -> the OS and the information that belongs to users. And since all the above technologies (MS technologies) are part of the OS, they should somehow also be considered when doing tests. Currently, no AV testing org considers them !

    https://www.wilderssecurity.com/showpost.php?p=2169931&postcount=5
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 15, 2013
  2. The Red Moon

    The Red Moon Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 17, 2012
    Posts:
    4,028
    Poor MSE getting torn apart yet again...I sincerely hope mr gates does not visit this forum..o_O

    I have to say though its been a few years since i used MSE but it seemed a capable program.Was rather heavy in terms of resource usage but didnt affect the computer in any form.

    On a more cynical note i do feel its not always the AV that needs "testing"..but rather the person behind the keyboard..:cautious: :cautious: :ninja:
     
  3. Feandur

    Feandur Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2005
    Posts:
    401
    Location:
    Australia
    Agreed...but for a different reason.... When it comes to discussing Internet Security Suites, not stand alone AV, it may come down to settling for a second best AV in order not to settle for (be lumbered with) a 3rd best firewall.

    https://www.wilderssecurity.com/showpost.php?p=2169776&postcount=1

    Not a fan of NIS by any means, and any individual component (eg: the AV) is beaten by other products...but I do keep coming back to the fact that, as a package, they do make a reasonable AV and a reasonable firewall. As a combo, that's OK in my book.

    Otherwise, I'm persuaded to go back to a mix and match of best in breed components....the catch (got ya') being compatibility, of course!

    That's where the hard learnt lessons of Wilder's members are so valuable when shared here.

    - cheers,
    feandur
     
  4. Marcos

    Marcos Eset Staff Account

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2002
    Posts:
    14,423
    If tools classified as potentially unsafe or unwanted are included in a test (e.g. legit keyloggers) and the test is meant to be unbiased, the tester is expected to properly enable detection of potentially unsafe / unwanted applications. Furthermore, these applications require a special approach especially for legal reasons; in particular, the user must be able to choose between taking an action and leaving the file intact. Are the aforementioned facts really a reason to count them as failures and penalize such security products? The same goes for cleaning registry keys that do not point to malware nor have any effect on the system or applications and do not pose any risk whatsoever.
     
  5. PJC

    PJC Very Frequent Poster

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Posts:
    2,959
    Location:
    Internet
    Once again, the usual ones,
    who unsuccessfully tried to "justify" MSE's Poor Performance,
    by repeating Poor Excuses.
    :thumb: :argh: :argh: :argh:
     
  6. LunarWolf

    LunarWolf Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2011
    Posts:
    203
    Location:
    Malaysia
    Anyone notice that the GUI for Qihoo 360 is in Eng? I thought all this while it is in chinese.
     
  7. er34

    er34 Guest

    What some amateur :rolleyes: users consider "Poor Excuses" we - the advanced users consider true facts.
     
  8. itman

    itman Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2010
    Posts:
    7,577
    Location:
    U.S.A.
    Pretty much also mirrors my opinions on NIS. It is the only suite or AV that doesn't impact my system performance either on XP or WIN 7; especially web surfing. I also have never been infected when using either NIS 2012 and 2013.

    I will state that Symantec did a deporable job on the 2013 release. They pretty much released a beta product and many of their customers are none to happy about it.
     
  9. Brandonn2010

    Brandonn2010 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2011
    Posts:
    1,850
    I would like to hear about this too.

    As for MSE, I understand many like it for its compatibility with Windows and its low FP rate, but I don't see how that is worth the consistently bad detection rates. There are plenty of AVs with few bugs and few FPs, so I don't understand the zealous defense of MSE.
     
  10. Bodhitree

    Bodhitree Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2012
    Posts:
    567
    Good test, Bullguard right up near the top.

    But consider the 'heaviness' on the machine rating.. I consider any product 10 or higher to be unusable, even on very fast machines. Trend took my 'fast' machine down to a very very old and slow machine in usability, it literally destroyed all speed. It's rated 17 on that list. Kaspersky is 14, I found that overly heavy as well. So lots to consider. Bullguard only 8, Bit Defender 10, Webroot 0, Eset 7.

    Eset is a good product, the problem is I feel it is under developed. For example their Spam/Email plugin only works up to version 5 of Thunderbird? Really? We are on version 17, and they have ESR protocols in place with 54 month development cycle. Absolutely no excuse, and this was one of the reasons I purchased a 5 PC 3 year license with Bullguard instead of Eset. Also Eset seems to lack in Web Scanning and PUP blocking. I found it blocked only 20-30% of the PUPs I tested with it, that's really not effective. Expansion of PUP detections, fixing the Email/Spam plugin, improving the web filter detection's, and it would be a keeper, until then forget it.
     
  11. PJC

    PJC Very Frequent Poster

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Posts:
    2,959
    Location:
    Internet
    "Advanced" users? :rolleyes:
    The ones offering these kind of "true facts" (= Poor Excuses) are Not even Amateurs! :thumbd:
     
  12. Firecat

    Firecat Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2005
    Posts:
    8,145
    Location:
    The land of no identity :D
    It is interesting to note the differences in detection and repair scores between Symantec Endpoint Security System, PC Tools Internet Security and Norton Internet Security. Whereas Norton does very well, the other two aren't doing all that well, especially in repair. For products that share technology, this is quite odd.
     
  13. De Hollander

    De Hollander Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2005
    Posts:
    718
    Location:
    Windmills and cows
  14. The Red Moon

    The Red Moon Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 17, 2012
    Posts:
    4,028
    With the help of kaspersky of course...:shifty: :shifty:
     
  15. zerotox

    zerotox Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2009
    Posts:
    417
  16. er34

    er34 Guest

    Very polite way to say that :
    - AV testing organizations are doing business which barely reflects the reality.
    - what is written there is confirmed by Marcos (from ESET) - mostly junk samples, non-working samples, or staff that never hits the world.
    - these tests are far from what some vendors does to really protect their customers.

    They have the telemetry to identify millions of file - what can we say about the small AV testing organizations - they have the same telemetry and resource ?

    Thanks for posting this ! :)
     
  17. De Hollander

    De Hollander Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2005
    Posts:
    718
    Location:
    Windmills and cows


    you're welcome :)
     
  18. elapsed

    elapsed Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2004
    Posts:
    7,076
  19. silverfox99

    silverfox99 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2006
    Posts:
    204
    Maybe. Read the Microsoft story. Couldn't the likes of McAfee justify their 'low' test results on the same basis though? Maybe McAfee AV is actually a great product too like MSE. Just not sure about it.
     
  20. trjam

    trjam Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2006
    Posts:
    9,102
    Location:
    North Carolina USA
    I will stick with what works and in my thoughts a cut above the rest.:thumb:
     
  21. silverfox99

    silverfox99 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2006
    Posts:
    204
  22. trjam

    trjam Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2006
    Posts:
    9,102
    Location:
    North Carolina USA
    well that's what I was going to say. Microsofts responds makes them look like idiots. Yeah maybe most of your user haven't detected it, duh, because it is new. But if they are exposed to it, BAM. MSE has no zero day protection and I am not the first to say it. You really might as well not use anything if you intend to use that crap. I really can not fathom their response.
     
  23. elapsed

    elapsed Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2004
    Posts:
    7,076
    Note:
    If they are so "on the ball" with grabbing fresh malware, once again I have to wonder, why is it they only tested 100 samples, in an entire month...

    Also onto what Macros was talking about earlier, how valid are these malware samples? Microsoft seems to think they aren't valid at all.

    I wonder if MS will respond to this "response".
     
  24. Macstorm

    Macstorm Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2005
    Posts:
    2,631
    Location:
    Sneffels volcano
  25. DrBenGolfing

    DrBenGolfing Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2012
    Posts:
    251
    Location:
    Hometown of Van Cliburn
    One could also use MS's story to say malware samples aren't really enough of a problem to bother having any antivirus software.
     
Loading...
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.