Dennis Technology Labs: PC Total Protection Suites 2011

Webroot Internet Security performed well in AV-Test.org's Real-World Testing during the fourth quarter of 2010.

 

Better wait for av-comparatives...

 

Hahaha true
I'm always waiting for AV-C tests, i feel like it's done better than the others

 

hahahahahahaha. lol.

 

If I'm not reading anything wrong, 50 unique malware were used. It's not even remotely enough to provide a meaningful analysis for detection/prevention capabilities of a product. I'll pass.

 

well, what a silly methodology - looking for false positives etc, not for real protection and zero day blocking - total craptest, sponsored by Symantec.

 

False positives have caused me more issues than any virus and has been my reason for removing more than one AV product in the last 2 years. It's been 6 years since I have actually been infected with anything. You don't have to value that part of the test if you don't care about it. I myself consider it more important than actual detection.

PS:
I don't necessarily mean to give credit to this test. Not enough samples to be useful.

 

If FP ratio is measure of how good AV program is, then having no AV is the best AV you can get, right ?

 

Detection and number of FPs are both important. An AV that detects everything as malware is not very useful either.

 

I've been tempted to feel that way. Any time I have to reformat a machine due to a false positive it leaves me feeling like I'd rather take the chance of not running AV. When the false positive is a system file or breaks your internet connection beyond repair it is a big deal. Especially when it is a server at work and your job is on the line.

 

you would realize importance of FP when u encounter your essential app being detected.

More importantly , FP is imp as it determines accuracy of your heuristic algorithm .
We can block everything suspicious, so it would be best as it would detect everything and of-course give a lot of Fp but this isn't the correct way .. right

You need to code something that effectively separate good from bad ... it has to be actually designed during coding which is not easy to devlop as it sounds...


Hope now you would have realized the Importance of FP

 

Complete ~ Snipped as per TOS ~!!! TM at no. 2? ROFLMAO!!!!

 

Not surprised at Norton, but am surprised at Avira. I will be interested in the next AVC tests.

Regards,
Jerry

 

I see that not everyone get the joke...

Anyway, Dennis Labs done the same thing as last year. They're happy, Symantec is happy, only user could be mislead. I don't put to much trust into the sponsored test since they tend to show results that are most important from marketing point of view

If that what have been said about 50 samples is true then that sample size is definitely to low and reminds me more Youtube test then real testing that we could expect from Technology Labs. Just my 0.02 €

Also, please don't get me wrong, I'm far from stating that Norton is bad IS/AV

 

I don't know how happy Symantec can be with five FPs out of a sample set of 50 clean files.

 

Well if as everyone says that Symantec "doctored" the results just because they paid for it, why wouldn't they have deleted the 5 false positives from the results ?

 

Why ? Just because GData didn't win ?

 

They gotta make it look "unbiased". Imagine a 100% protection and 0 FP's.... would you bite it?