New Real World Test AV Comparatives results are out!

Discussion in 'other anti-virus software' started by MultiVisions2013, Jul 25, 2013.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. MultiVisions2013

    MultiVisions2013 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2013
    Posts:
    61
    Location:
    Canada
  2. Antimalware18

    Antimalware18 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2008
    Posts:
    417
    Well done avast! Bitdefender and trend micro results are suprising:blink:
     
  3. anon

    anon Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2012
    Posts:
    4,097
  4. Sher

    Sher Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2005
    Posts:
    366
    Location:
    Pakistan
    Trend Micro, I agree, but why Bitdefender?
     
  5. clocks

    clocks Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2007
    Posts:
    2,561
    Maybe due to the amount of false positives.
     
  6. Sher

    Sher Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2005
    Posts:
    366
    Location:
    Pakistan
    It doesn't matter to me much because I could deal with them personally. Overall, it's still the best product.
     
  7. AVusah

    AVusah Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2012
    Posts:
    274
    Why is Qihoo not in the report?
     
    Last edited: Jul 25, 2013
  8. Antimalware18

    Antimalware18 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2008
    Posts:
    417
    I was looking at overall detection rates. False positives dont bother me that much unless every other detection is one.
     
  9. malexous

    malexous Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2010
    Posts:
    828
    Location:
    Ireland
  10. ZeroDay

    ZeroDay Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2011
    Posts:
    693
    Location:
    Hogwarts.
    How Bitdefender keeps scoring high is beyond me. I own a Bitdefender antivirus plus license and I wanted to see how good the product really was, so over the last 2 weeks I've been testing it in a virtual machine. I've lost count of the amount of samples that have bypassed it. For the life of me I cannot understand how Bd consistently scores 100% and 99.9% on AVC and also scores 100% on AV-TEST. Anyone on this forum can download even a small set of samples (say 40) and I guarantee BD will be bypassed more than once. Now if I'm coming across malware samples on a daily basis for 2 weeks that are bypassing BD why the hell aren't AVC coming across as many samples able to go straight passed BD?

    I just find it very strange. Before anyone starts jumping in, the tests I've done are not youtube tests, they are just my own private tests, and for me Bitdefender has failed big time and I no longer consider it anywhere near 99.9%.
     
  11. Taliscicero

    Taliscicero Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2008
    Posts:
    1,439
    Yep, Just how I predicted with G-DATA 2014 getting lower scores due to a lack of Avast!. Compare march where it was using 2013, and the other three months where its using 2014. I think they were being cheap not renewing Avast! as engine (B).

    They get secondary gains from all the other antivirus programs that use their engines or cloud, which means they get free signature files.

    You also find BD and others with constantly higher scores use a dirty trick in testing. Example one would be a code trip where after 100 signature detections consecutively it can go into "test" mode and assume all unknown files are malicious and thus flags everything as "Generic:Malware."
     
    Last edited: Jul 25, 2013
  12. clocks

    clocks Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2007
    Posts:
    2,561

    Isn't that this?

    http://www.360safe.com/pc.html
     
  13. SweX

    SweX Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2007
    Posts:
    6,429
  14. FreddyFreeloader

    FreddyFreeloader Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2013
    Posts:
    527
    Location:
    Tejas
  15. skp14

    skp14 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2009
    Posts:
    56
  16. Rompin Raider

    Rompin Raider Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2010
    Posts:
    1,228
    Location:
    North Texas
    Interesting....thanks! A little bit of shakin & bakin going on!:shifty:
     
  17. itman

    itman Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2010
    Posts:
    2,969
    Location:
    U.S.A.
    A couple of questions:

    1. How did you download your malware samples?
    2. What were your BD settings;

    a). On-access i.e. realtime scan settings?
    b). On-demand i.e. offline scan settings?
    c). Active Virus Control i.e. hueristics settings?
    d). IDS set on?
     
  18. ZeroDay

    ZeroDay Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2011
    Posts:
    693
    Location:
    Hogwarts.
    For a start there is no IDS in Bitdefender antivirus plus plus.

    All settings were at default.

    I got my samples from MalwareTips uploaded by Spywar and MalwareCentre all verified fresh by the respective uploaders.

    Test it yourself on default settings, but however you try to discredit my personal tests won't take away the fact that BDAV+ is easily bypassed by malware samples on a daily basis. Go on try it yourself.
     
  19. Fabian Wosar

    Fabian Wosar Developer

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2010
    Posts:
    787
    Location:
    Germany
    The problem here is your methodology. In your methodology the entire step of how the malware gets to your system is completely removed from the whole equation.

    Some behavior blockers will keep in mind the origin of a file and how it got onto your system. That means if it is downloaded from the Internet, it may get a strong bias towards being malicious.

    Of course there is also the fact that a lot of AVs will block access to malicious hosts or prevent or block the exploits that are used to install the malware on the victim's PC. All cases that will count as a "blocked" by AV-C.
     
  20. ZeroDay

    ZeroDay Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2011
    Posts:
    693
    Location:
    Hogwarts.
    Thanks Fabian, but I was strictly testing the Av without it's web protection. I wanted to know how strong the AV itself was. But I do understand your point that AVC do take web blocking into consideration, thanks again.
     
  21. Fabian Wosar

    Fabian Wosar Developer

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2010
    Posts:
    787
    Location:
    Germany
    Then you can't compare your results with neither AV-C nor AV-Test results as both will not just test the AV, but will look at protection in general, starting from the attempted exploitation/malware download.
     
  22. The Hammer

    The Hammer Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2005
    Posts:
    5,619
    Location:
    Toronto Canada
    Good showing by McAfee.
     
  23. ZeroDay

    ZeroDay Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2011
    Posts:
    693
    Location:
    Hogwarts.
    Even including that I really don't see how Bitdefender is scoring so high, it's AV really isn't that strong.
     
  24. Fabian Wosar

    Fabian Wosar Developer

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2010
    Posts:
    787
    Location:
    Germany
    It doesn't have to. Quite frankly you can get 100% block rate at these tests without a single signature if your URL block list for example is complete enough :). BitDefenders URL blocking is quite aggressive, as you can see when you look at the amounts of false positives it caused.
     
  25. ZeroDay

    ZeroDay Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2011
    Posts:
    693
    Location:
    Hogwarts.
    Ok Fabian thanks for the info. I'll spend the next couple of weeks testing the whole of BDAV+ guards and see if It still gets bypassed a lot as has happened so far in just testing the AV. Thanks again.
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.