File-Detection Test September 2012

Discussion in 'other anti-virus software' started by chabbo, Oct 9, 2012.

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

    chabbo Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2009
    Posts:
    350
  2. marciocruz

    marciocruz Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2008
    Posts:
    249
    the result of webroot is disappointing.....
    everyone else, continue with the same result as expected..
     
  3. Nevis

    Nevis Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2010
    Posts:
    786
    Location:
    255.255.255.255
    Good result by trend micro & McAfee, quite a surprise.
     
  4. Firecat

    Firecat Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2005
    Posts:
    7,927
    Location:
    The land of no identity :D
    AhnLab, Microsoft and PC Tools - start pushing the updates already and work on the heuristics/behavioural detection! These are good products hindered by niggles like these.

    Good job from AVG, McAfee, AVIRA and Trend Micro. Dunno what's up with Webroot.

    It's interesting to compare with AV-Test's results; some products seem to have quite variable performance.
     
  5. JoeBlack40

    JoeBlack40 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2009
    Posts:
    1,572
    Location:
    Romania
    After seeing this test,i guess it will be an "explosion" of those who will change their AV...or not?:D
     
  6. andyman35

    andyman35 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2007
    Posts:
    2,336
    That's an understatement :eek:

    I've not read through the whole report as yet,but a detection rate miles behind the other tested products and "crazy many" FPs;it seems to be a shockingly bad display from them.
     
  7. marciocruz

    marciocruz Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2008
    Posts:
    249
    detection below 80%*

    "*Results and misses have been confirmed with several tests and also by the vendor. Even two weeks after the
    test-date, the detection rate was still lower than 80%. Also a representative set ofmisses was sent for peer-review to an independent party."

    as viewed on test result;maybe another bug :)
     
  8. andyman35

    andyman35 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2007
    Posts:
    2,336
    There has to be some reason for such an abysmal result as this,I can't believe that WSA has become that bad.:doubt:
     
  9. Cloud

    Cloud Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2011
    Posts:
    1,030
    Location:
    United States
    AhnLab has a cloud of their own too, by the way. Take note they are based in Korea.
     
  10. trjam

    trjam Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2006
    Posts:
    9,057
    Location:
    North Carolina
    but remember, after those plus 20 percent of missed samples try to run, WSA isolates them and then months later, disinfects them after they determine they are malicious.:blink:

    Anyway, nope this test isnt causing me to change, but I will say hats off to Trend Micro and my sleeper for next year, McAfee
     
  11. Sher

    Sher Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2005
    Posts:
    366
    Location:
    Pakistan
    Trend Micro is 2nd? You have got to be kidding me. :doubt:
     
  12. treehouse786

    treehouse786 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2010
    Posts:
    1,388
    Location:
    Lancashire
    shocking result by WSA
     
  13. Amin

    Amin Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 16, 2012
    Posts:
    437
    Location:
    UK
    i always trusted this German software.. Avira.. now i know why i did !
     
  14. gery

    gery Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2008
    Posts:
    1,785
    i was surprised too
     
  15. Thankful

    Thankful Savings Monitor

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2005
    Posts:
    3,731
    Location:
    New York City
    Really awful performance by Webroot. FPs continue to plague them even though they insist they don't.
    Congrats to Avira for an excellent performance.
     
  16. PrevxHelp

    PrevxHelp Former Prevx Moderator

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2008
    Posts:
    8,242
    Location:
    USA/UK
    Even more so, if those samples tried to run, we'd have a dramatically higher detection rate. This is just an on-demand test which doesn't take into account any of our additional detection methods which occur in realtime, so I'm not terribly surprised at the score. I haven't looked at what the false positives were but that's the more surprising part of the score as it's been almost completely silent regarding FPs for quite some time from my perspective. I suspect these are over unpopular applications but I'll be taking a closer look shortly.
     
  17. trjam

    trjam Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2006
    Posts:
    9,057
    Location:
    North Carolina
    and congrts to BullGuard. As good as results as Kaspersky.:thumb:
     
  18. Firecat

    Firecat Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2005
    Posts:
    7,927
    Location:
    The land of no identity :D
    I have been aware of their products for several years now. Good products IMO but I always found it a little costly for my tastes (international market).
     
  19. Firecat

    Firecat Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2005
    Posts:
    7,927
    Location:
    The land of no identity :D
    IMO if a product receives even a "standard" rating in an AV-comparatives test, it is probably good enough to protect an average computer. AVG was "standard" rated for many years (it only recently started improving), and I have never had a case of infection or any complaints about it's ability to protect me on the internet. That's why I feel (despite the differences the test may show) that each certified product from AV-C in the real world is very close to the next one.
     
  20. fax

    fax Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2005
    Posts:
    3,727
    Location:
    localhost
    I wonder why webroot still wants to participate to this test as it does not reflect the real on access detection of the software. Better to withdraw from it than risking their reputation and image unnecessarily. Other AV companies did the same (e.g. Norton).
     
  21. Thankful

    Thankful Savings Monitor

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2005
    Posts:
    3,731
    Location:
    New York City
    I agree. The only benefit to Webroot is the test points out FPs Webroot may have.
     
  22. 3x0gR13N

    3x0gR13N Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 1, 2008
    Posts:
    754
    Perhaps they're willing to be the dark knight... "Why are they chasing bashing him daddy?" "Because he can take it."
     
  23. marciocruz

    marciocruz Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2008
    Posts:
    249
    yes,is better webroot think about withdraw av comparative test...because that can change their reputation, and costumer "view" of a company.

    Because every time a test comes with result's, there's always a explanation about result..sometimes a bug, another time a problem with cloud connection...for average user that is not a good publicity and can confuse some costumer's.
     
  24. ams963

    ams963 Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2011
    Posts:
    5,965
    Location:
    Parallel Universe
    Right. :D:thumb:
     
  25. Thankful

    Thankful Savings Monitor

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2005
    Posts:
    3,731
    Location:
    New York City
    A couple points about the on- demand test and Webroot of which I currently own a license and am using.
    1. Users selected the on-demand test as their most important test according to the latest security summary performed by AV-Comparatives.
    2. Why does Webroot rave about the speed of their scan when , by their own admission, on-demand scanning is not the strength of their program and is sub-par as evidenced by this latest test?
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.