New german PC-Welt Test by av-test.org

Discussion in 'other anti-virus software' started by FRug, Nov 28, 2006.

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

    FRug Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2006
    Posts:
    309
  2. btman

    btman Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2006
    Posts:
    576
    Kaspersky and NOD32 and bitdefender and avast... and basically all good av companies that don't use more than one engine BELOW symantec? Yeah right.
     
  3. RejZoR

    RejZoR Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2004
    Posts:
    6,426
    Why people underestimate Symantec so much? Sure their sofware isn't optimized to the max but they have very advanced scan engine (which can handle even the most complex stuff) and staff that is one of the best in the industry.
    Considering their scale, number of analysts and honeypots, they sure can provide the firepower required to detect malware. What they usually lack is response time since they have wide range of products and they have to test definitins for all of them before publishing them. Thats why small companies with less products can issue updates faster even though they have less man power in company itself.
     
  4. Netherlands

    Netherlands Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2005
    Posts:
    159
    Yes that is true!! The things that i not like from them is:

    1) To mutch resources used
    2) To slow definition release

    The resource uses has be uptimized in the 2007 but they are always last when it comes to updating virus definitions. It would not be so bad if they had good heuristics but that is also not the case here :(
     
  5. tec505

    tec505 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2006
    Posts:
    284
    Location:
    Romulus, class M planet
    According to last tests Norton AV is very powerful product. What I don't like in Symantec products is that they are too much system invasive. They try to control all my machine, modifying some windows default tasks. This what I do not like. But, may be 2007 ver. is better then older vers.. 2007 never tested.

    Best Regards.
    Mike
     
  6. Legendkiller

    Legendkiller Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2006
    Posts:
    1,052
    Another great example,that many people still believe in rumours and superstitions rather than judging things by themselves..

    Amazing to read here from people who bash a product based on age-old myths about products rather than trying out themselves..

    I use to use norton IS 2006(supposedly most resource hungry..) on 1.7Ghz processor,512Mb ram without problems...
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    As for this ratings,i am very happy with it,as all the results seem to pretty fair and on expected lines...
    And also good to see symantec finally getting better at detections prompting me to safely call it the best suite available right now..
     
  7. tec505

    tec505 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2006
    Posts:
    284
    Location:
    Romulus, class M planet
    If you're referring to me pay attention in what are you saying:
    I wrote :
    "According to last tests Norton AV is very powerful product." and "But, may be 2007 ver. is better then older vers.. 2007 never tested." thats means that I've never tested 2007 release. And thats menas too that Norton 2007 could be better than older versions.
    I wrote also:
    "What I don't like in Symantec products is that they are too much system invasive. They try to control all my machine, modifying some windows default tasks. This what I do not like." that explain what I don't like according to the fact I used Norton 2003/2004/2005!!!!!! With resource hog problems, Pc slowing downs, Some trojan infections ....
    So I decided to uninstall-it and now i'm using BD AV.
    In conclusion: Please before write foolish things please read and if you do not understand ask. .... Before ... As I never judge products w/o personal experience and I never express opinions w/o correct informations.
    This is what is amazing me!!!!
    Best regards
    Mike
     
  8. Firefighter

    Firefighter Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2002
    Posts:
    1,670
    Location:
    Finland
    Almost. Only one, light to use, excellent heuristics single engined av beated Scamantec so, that Norton missed about 6.6 times more samples than this av. Damn, I forgot the name of it! :rolleyes:

    Best regards,
    Firefighter!
     
    Last edited: Nov 28, 2006
  9. Legendkiller

    Legendkiller Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2006
    Posts:
    1,052
    It was a general comment,coz there were some comments made in "Norton-360",which were not on facts and you may also visit popular sites to see that ur comments are not the only one's which criticise symantec without using their latest products.
    And u have also said that u last tested Norton-2005 and not even 2006 or 2007...so which IMHO isn't a fair practise.
    So,i can only,apologise if you took it personally.
    If you have anything else to say,plz PM me.
     
  10. 337

    337 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2006
    Posts:
    232
    Location:
    Georgia, USA
     
  11. tec505

    tec505 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2006
    Posts:
    284
    Location:
    Romulus, class M planet
    Ok.

    Friend as before. (In Italy we say: Amici come Prima= no problem, friend)

    Best Regards.
    Mike
     
  12. Legendkiller

    Legendkiller Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2006
    Posts:
    1,052
    same here,amico!
     
  13. apm

    apm Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2006
    Posts:
    162
    Some time ago Norman was just like Vet, now it's ahead Nod & Mcafee, quite a big jump.
     
  14. Arin

    Arin Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 1, 2004
    Posts:
    997
    Location:
    India
    Not that it matters much, but Norman has little over 556k signatures in its database. It'd have been totally useless had it failed the test.
     
  15. SourMilk

    SourMilk Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2006
    Posts:
    630
    Location:
    Hawaii
    Personally, I have never run into that many different worms, bots, trojans, or backdoors that testers use to evaluate antivirus programs. I found Klez back in 1998 or so and an archaic Java malware knocking at my internet door but never scads of baddies that are used for testing. I guess I just don't go deep enough into the web to confront most of these or they aren't relevant to most people. If this is true, the majority of people could get by with any popular antivirus that looks for the obvious and reported virus infections. I could be wrong, but Kaspersky and I keep a lookout anyway.

    SourMilk out
     
  16. DaveD

    DaveD Guest

    I never realized that eTrust was that bad...

    It's too bad that ClamAV doesn't have more participation when it comes to sending in samples and such. With it being open-source and all, with popularity it could gain much more when it comes to detection rates with more participation. I predict that it will gain in popularity over time, but they really need to complete their on-access scanning sooner or later.
     
  17. JerryM

    JerryM Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2003
    Posts:
    4,221
    NOD did well and is between Avast and AVG. The freebies did well. I am not aware that the paid versions have a better detection rate.
    Jerry
     
  18. Firecat

    Firecat Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2005
    Posts:
    7,927
    Location:
    The land of no identity :D
    AVG Anti-Malware has better detection rate than AVG Free/Professional. :)

    Pretty interesting results from this test. Good job from Ikarus. Dr.Web is still lagging somewhat, while BitDefender and Kaspersky (and clones) do well. AntiVir is still at top.....

    To be honest, Trend Micro has suprised me in this test. They are improving, which is a good thing. :)
     
  19. JerryM

    JerryM Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2003
    Posts:
    4,221
    Hi Firecat,
    Where do you find that AVG Anti-Malware has better detection rate than AVG Free/Professional? Are we talking about the AT program, or is there a different program? I had thought the AVG Free/Pro was the best for viruses and trojans.

    F-Prot doesn't show well.

    When the tests show that an application is below 95%, I have no interest in it when there are so many better and even free. That lets out some favorites on the forum like Dr Web, and F-Prot.

    Best,
    Jerry
     
  20. lodore

    lodore Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2006
    Posts:
    9,007
    interesting kaspersky higher detection rate than f-secure.
    but kaspersky does way more updates.
    so that could explain it.
    so more engines didnt help f-secure in this case
    lodore
     
  21. the Tester

    the Tester Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2002
    Posts:
    2,854
    Location:
    The Gateway to the Blue Hills,WI.
    WebWasher is at the top in this test?
    What engine do they use?

    I see that McAfee is lower than I would have expected.
    And Symantec continues to show well.
     
  22. ren

    ren Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2006
    Posts:
    45
    hello,
    still v3, i think.
     
  23. JerryM

    JerryM Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2003
    Posts:
    4,221
    I think so too, and am hoping the v4 will show enough improvements to get in the 95% range. I never read of problems with it. Maybe it is not very widely used, but with their license policy it would be of interest to me.

    Best,
    Jerry
     
  24. Firecat

    Firecat Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2005
    Posts:
    7,927
    Location:
    The land of no identity :D
    Well, AVG Anti-Malware is basically Ewido+AVG Pro engines together in a single program, and that by itself creates a better detection rate for the program. I do believe AVG Anti-Malware will be used for all AV-comparatives tests from now on, as this program was used for the PUP test....

    Yeah, its strange that F-Prot should score only 81.56%. I find that low even for the v3 engine. And its probably the first time I see that Command AV actually scored less than F-Prot itself....

    Dr.Web actually has a very nice engine, so it is disappointing that such a good engine is not scoring among the best. I hope Dr.Web makes an effort to improve in the future (Well, Virus Chaser analysts can help I guess).
     
  25. Arin

    Arin Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 1, 2004
    Posts:
    997
    Location:
    India
    I wonder why no one mentioned anything about Fortinet.
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.