new av-comparatives nov-09

I searched the forum, but I could not see a thread. Here it is

~ Removed Direct PDF Link as per AV-Comparatives Request - See Main-Tests page for the actual PDF ~

Looks like Kaspersky bites back!! And norton really is in trouble!

 

Woohoo .. for MSE. A free-no-nags product that delivers.
Also kudos to Avira. They blew everyone out of the water in detection, including those who use multiple engines !! Too bad FPs relegated them.

No other surprises. Everyone you would expect to perform did.

 

Bah, where's PCAV? Get with the program Panda!

 

Whats wacky is to see MSE on the top of the list. Alot of free products as of late are doing better then most paid products. Also with this test keep in mind that any "Cloud tech's" are not used so if your AV relays on "cloud for detection" your results will be lower. Good test all around tho I guess with how company's are developing new technology's to combat virus Not just Heur and Sigs we might be seeing test's change soon to accommodate that.

 

MSE i doing great. I think that has to do with microsoft as developer. I think MSE are more likely to know which file to trust based upon the way it is designed from microsoft rather then other thirdparty AV. (hard to explain because of my english skills,hope you understand!)

 

Avira seems to always have the Gold in sight but then the FP's always knock them back a half step I never have had a problem with Avira in this area (knocks on wood). I do wish Panda would get back in the competition again just to add to the mix...

 

Nice Performance from G Data!
And Avira excellent just a bit too much FP

 

Eight products that made it to the Advanced+ plus stage. I think eScan is the biggest surprise of them all. Was it a CA brand a few years ago? Avira has been very consistent of late. I haven't had too many false positives knock on computer desk.

 

With today’s anti-virus products, disabling the “in-the-cloud” functionality -- which is so central to their operation -- and then comparing performance is almost absurd. This methodology is far removed from the most common conditions under which users actually employ these products.

The results of this test are academically interesting, but have no applied merit whatsoever (in my opinion).

 

I have had no FPs with Avira. Zero. The Avira detection rate is far superior to other antivirus programs. The FP penalty seems excessive.

 

eScan has no association with CA. Its from Microworld.And they use Bitdefender engine along with their database.

I think you are referring to is eTrust/EZ. Which is still a CA brand.

 

The same problem exists imo. How many FPs are there. I know IBK doesn't want to release that detail, but it's still important information.

NOD32 - 60% detection / 14.005 samples detected. 12 FPs.
Avira - 74% detection / 17.282 samples detected. 21 FPs.
Difference is 14% (!) in detection, 3.277 (!) more samples that Avira detected. 9 extra FPs for Avira.
If there were 25 samples for FPs, i would agree (more) with the Advanced / Advanced+ classification. If there were 10.000 samples things would be different. Because it's an unknown, FP tests are meaningless and irrelevant.

 

Your opinion is meaningless and irrelevant. FPs can destroy networks and make businesses lose thousand worth in a single day. You're thinking far too closed minded as if this is a home user issue.

Avira's high FP rate is a fact, great some that people have experienced none, but it is something we should all agree, definitely needs worked on by Avira so they can finally score gold.

 

What did you say after this?

 

Going to agree with Pleonasm. If you are going to disable a products default functionality, then why even test it. To me this would be similar to disabling heuristics, simply because not all products use heuristics.

 

I believe I said:

 

A lot of newbie computer users might quarantine or delete the false positive and it could be a key Windows service. They might render their computer useless and we can read all about it on the news.

I haven't experienced a false positive in a while with Antivir. They should get an advanced+ rating among the eight others or a special slot. *L*

I knew it wasn't CA because of the results. Anything that starts with an E and I wonder.

 

That's a problem with time. You'd have to execute every sample, for every product tested. With this many samples he would go nuts. How to solve that?

 

Reading a little further on in the PDF:

 

Lets NOT turn this into a ~ Snipped as per TOS ~ match.

But I will agree with fuz on one thing one of the main reasons I will not recommend Avira on our network, FP's are to much of a headache it would just make the product not worth it. Now Avira on a home computer is fine never had issues with it on mine. Here not to long ago Eset had a problem with FP's of system files, unfortunately Eset locked the files and crashed about 150 or so computers. Needless to say I'm alot more cautious of what I let on the systems now.

 

This is the exact kind of thing I'm talking about, you can't just dismiss FP's as useless.

 

Lol Sorry JRViejo, Ill watch it next time.

 

Yes, but Avira caught ALOT more than Eset, I think the fact that it has missed additional 9 FPs can be partly ignored. I also believe that it's better to jugde files suspiciously, especially as an administrator a high FP rate forces him to take closer looks into those files. I personally think that his opinion is reasonable, Avira deserves more respect for its, imo, outstanding perfomance...

 

While not without some limitations, a better approach (in my opinion) is that used in the recent anti-virus comparative done by Dennis Technology Lab. This method mimics a user’s real-world interaction with the web, and allows all features of each product to be active when assessing whether malware is detected and blocked.

As InfinityAz noted, “If you are going to disable a product’s default functionality {i.e., in-the-cloud capabilities}, then why even test it?” Sure, it’s easier to construct and execute an artificial “test” like that done by AV-Comparatives -- but, it is so far removed from reality, in my opinion, that is lacks any practical merit.

I would be extremely hesitant to draw any conclusions (positive or negative) about any of the anti-virus products, based upon the data from this test.