New Test from PCSL: China Region Malware Test

The following seem more reasonable to me:

0.7
0.5
0.3

 

I'm starting to ask myself the very same question. I know it is good at cleaning, but their detection rate is quite low. I hope they have a way to really improve their products. In my opinion they seem to be stuck in time.

Thanks.

 

Above all, include the total number of clean samples you use, and use percentages.

Thank you for your testing. Your website is looking better (!), but i can't find what you refer as the 'PC Security Labs Manual'.

Keep up the good work!

 

Excellent
Panda is getting real good with it's "Cloud Technology" lately

 

Listed as "Sunbelt."

 

Yes and the behavioral module of 1.1 will collect more potentially harmfull programs to increase the huge cloud (server side) blacklist they have allready.

The behavioral modules in AV's serve two purposes

a) to protecte against possible rootkits (as Avast/PrevX have implemented), for cloud based AV's this is an abolute nessecity, because you do not want some malware having ring-0/system rights when your protection needs an active internet connection. For an AV like Avast which also has a safe mode scan, the combo Behavioral Blocker/Safe Mode scan provides real strong anti-rootkit protection (IMO Avast free has top notch rootkit protection at the moment).

b) collect samples for automatic analysis (as PrevX allready has implemented).

I have seen Panda moving up in the charts at several tests, the new Behavioral Module will only make it better. To compensate for the on-line Achilles spot, they need to develop a RegRun like Partizan Rootit killer facility.

I think PrevX will implement such a facility in PrevX4

 

Yes, and I believe PCA in a sharp version in conjuction with Prevx4 will be a killer combination. Hopefully, they'll be compatible with each other.

 

I am sure that they'll be compatible with each other...Prevx can be used with any other anti-malware...

 

Unless Panda refuses to

 

Interesting results, I didn't expect AVG to come out near the top. However I have to ask:

- How well does this indicate success against malware in RAM (via realtime protection)?
- What about blocking of malicious downloads via HTTP scanning, if applicable?
- What about self-protection from malware that's executed? (Even granted that all bets are off once that happens.)
- What about heuristics?

Basically: how indicative are the results of real-world efficacy against these malware samples? Panda, the top contender, may for instance recognize most of the samples.. But if I go to a website that uses a Javascript exploit or what have you to automatically download and run the malware, what is going to happen?

 

Dear Pcslinfo,

You have not incorporated dynamic results like your previous tests this time.
Any specific reason? Otherwise many products score a lot on this test.

Thanks

 

can you perhaps test one time on standard settings and an other test on maximum settings?
for example emsis heuristik is not active.

 

IKARUS also good

 

Yeah, i still wonder why they don't design their own AV and fight the big players

 

they do have their own AV...

 

why no Avast at test?

 

Ikarus virus Utilities

 

It will be in the next test. See post 18.

 

I know they had an AV but it's kinda "Low Profile" they should launch it globally

 

it is launched globally, i think what ur trying to say is that they should advertise it more?

 

Something to keep in mind if you're not in China:

Source: Microsoft Security Intelligence Report Volume 8

 

Panda did not want to take part in the 'Performance test of 2009', done by AV-Comparatives.org, meaning they're probably afraid to be exposed as a resource hogging security suite.

 

How do you know that?

 

its not true.

 

So Shadek is wrong?