new av-comparatives nov-09

The poster commented on a facet of a test. Why do you feel it necessary to resort to a personal slam?

 

I agree. Static on demand tests are obsolete nowdays. Sure, they show the ability of signature based detection, but not the true ability of the program.

 

all products had updates disabled. (to be exact, turned on, but offline).
other tests (including "real-world") in next weeks.

 

In that case, I think the Placebo Antivirus is the best choice for you guys. There are 0% false positives. MSE is too risky for you.

 

ROFL I post Placebo once and now it has taken over the boards... Its an invasion. BTW IBK want to test Placebo in your next tests for us I'm curious where it stands.

Also. Want to check that link all it links to is Fanboys which has NO barring on what I'm talking about, or anyone else here for that matter. You might want to read the whole post and not just watch stands out to you.

 

Because he wants to be on your ignore list

 

I have to say again.. Norton did really BAD!!

They have been shouting about theire 2010 line, but here they fail. Why? Is it because they are using "in the cloud" tecknology?

 

Agreed. I have never had a FP in years of use.

 

Because this is a test of Sigs and Heuristics Not a test of the program it self. Just like alot of other products out there that have different ways of detecting and preventing malware. Unfortunately Sigs and Heuristics are not the standard anymore for ANY AV.

And before anyone else here says it NO I'm not a fanboy of Norton or really any other AV. This tests shows exactly what it should how a product will do just using its Signatures and Heuristics. Nothing more nothing less.

 

Good Result by GData but it uses BitDefender and Avast! engine and still it fared better than the two.
Strange

 

should never set any av product to delete things automatically,especially if your business depends on your network

 

The only FP's that I ever got with Avira is with NOCD cracks for some games I have. I hate having the CD or DVD in the drive to play a game. Good work with MSE. I just wish the updating thing would get fixed.

Ice

 

cube, I use this tool to update MSE, here, and it works like a charm. Good work MSE and G Data.

 

No one mentioned anything about deletion, quarantine a file can do the exact same damage.

Saying FP's are invalid just shows lack of experience, which isn't a problem since we're all here to learn, but posting stuff like this doesn't get us anywhere.

 

Is Symantec AV 17 = Norton 2010 Engine.
I heard they make huge heuristics improvement in Norton 2010 engine. Since it only came out less then 3 months my guess is that it is still an Norton 2009 product.

I would love to see how Panda Cloud AV does in the test.

Also another point worth mentioning, ALL AV manage very well in this test. If you look at all previous test, hardly any AV score higher then 50%. It means either these samples were easy to detect, or all AV have had some update in heuristics.

 

Keep in mind they disable all CLOUD tech in this test for every av.... So it would score 0% unless it has some offline sigs.

 

thanks trjam, I will give it a shot on my wife's pc.

Ice

 

thats because the engines combines catch what the other misses resulting in a combined higher detection than either Bitdefender or Avast alone.

 

well what about Nortons ever bragged about SONAR behavior blocking? is that cloud based as well meaning that if ur not connected to the internet ur gunna get the terrible protection shown in this test?

 

SONAR can works offline

 

Are you saying that AV-Comparatives will be releasing additional tests in the near future that are more realistic? Or, are these coming from a different testing organization?

SONAR2 operates, in part, by leveraging reputation data in the cloud: “The classification engine in SONAR 2 also uses the strength of the Norton Community and Quorum technology to build a classifier that is truly representative of prevalence of these behaviors in applications across the Norton user community” (see here). Since this AV-Comparatives test disabled the cloud connectivity, the estimation of the performance of SONAR2 is inaccurate (and, similar statements might also be applicable for the other products tested).

In addition, SONAR2 primarily detects malware upon execution. The AV-Comparatives test is, however, “on demand” (a passive system scan only).

 

I think SONAR is real-time reputation/behaviour analysis tool, so it will not be of any use in on-demand scans. It will be effective in Dynamic tests.

 

This test result confirms Microsoft MSE's solid position in the AV world.
Remember this is is both new (just launched version 1.0) and FREE.

Pretty sure when it gets to version 1.x or 2.x, MSE will be the killer AV

 

Avira is number one with a huge margin, period. Your reasoning is exactly the way I see
the process of detection. People who give unreasonable importance to FPs ought to know that Avira can be set to quarantine first before any action is taken, giving you the possibility to reverse the damage.

It is hard to swallow the fact that AV Comparatives still give the + suffix to Eset and others who miss THOUSANDS more samples than Avira.

Common sense will prevail I believe, and it is not a fluke that Avira has 100 Million + users.

It is nice to see how well MSE and Avast scored (with the internet connection this could only have been improved). Symantec is almost at the bottom... This isn't PCWorld thank God!

 

False positives are not irrelevant. Most of the AV tests now include them.
AVs with a large number of unsophisticated users such as Norton and MSE are VERY careful to reduce the number of FPs due to the amount of damage they can cause.