PC World: 13 security solutions tested by AV-Test

Discussion in 'other anti-virus software' started by King Grub, Dec 28, 2010.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. King Grub

    King Grub Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2006
    Posts:
    814
  2. lordraiden

    lordraiden Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2006
    Posts:
    3,075
    1. Symantec Norton Internet Security 2011
    2. Kaspersky Internet Security 2011
    3. BitDefender Internet Security 2011
    4. PC Tools Internet Security 2011 :D
    5. G-Data Internet Security 2011
    ...
    10. Avira AntiVir Premium Security Suite :D
    11. Comodo Internet Security 2011
    ---Pros: Blocked all 25 real-world malware attacks in our testing (the only product that blocked everything); has a sandbox system for running potentially unsafe applications.
    ---Bottom line: Absent a solid level of core security :D
    12. McAfee Internet Security 2011 :D
    13. Webroot Internet Security Essentials 2011

    Please dont lose the time reading any of the reviews, they are a joke, is not even clear which standards they use to include the app's in the top ten.

    Everyting in a table
    http://www.pcworld.com/zoom?id=214618&page=1&zoomIdx=1

    Thanks to that we have AVComparatives.
     
    Last edited: Dec 28, 2010
  3. clocks

    clocks Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2007
    Posts:
    2,559
    McAfee the lightest suite?!?! Makes me doubt the validity of the whole review.
     
  4. lordraiden

    lordraiden Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2006
    Posts:
    3,075
  5. Cudni

    Cudni Global Moderator

    Joined:
    May 24, 2009
    Posts:
    6,956
    Location:
    Somethingshire
  6. Thankful

    Thankful Savings Monitor

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2005
    Posts:
    3,736
    Location:
    New York City
    Eset has never done particularly well in tests by Av-Test.org.
     
  7. Scoobs72

    Scoobs72 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2007
    Posts:
    1,108
    Location:
    Sofa (left side)
    The tests were conducted by AV-Test.org who have a pretty decent reputation. A few things look a bit odd but nothing that is impossible. Mcafee did pretty well in the AV-Comparatives performance testing - maybe they've made further improvements since then.

    The detection rates look about right as well.

    Comodo, Mcafee and Webroot came bottom of the tests, effectively earning a "Don't use/buy" recommendation.
     
  8. Thankful

    Thankful Savings Monitor

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2005
    Posts:
    3,736
    Location:
    New York City
    The test looks legitimate to me as well.
     
  9. lordraiden

    lordraiden Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2006
    Posts:
    3,075
    Yes pretty normal testing range 25 samples :D Avira 10th it's the worst choice of the table although in AVComparatices Dynamic test was in 3rd position with almost 2000 samples. With just 25 samples in the Dynamic test any result can come up.
    AvTest is reliable but still can do a irrelevant test under the orders of a magazine.
     
  10. toxinon12345

    toxinon12345 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2010
    Posts:
    1,200
    Location:
    Managua, Nicaragua
    It is not the first time PCWorld commit these errors, nor the only product harmed.
     
  11. Matthijs5nl

    Matthijs5nl Guest

    On first hand I thought, this doesn't look that bad. Except for a too small realworld sample set ofcourse. But then I read my beloved ESET review.

    * Its download and installation process was the most aggravating of all the apps we've reviewed, an exercise in frustration as you're required to register and enter Eset-provided user names and passwords again and again

    Again and again, does that mean the same as twice? Once upon download and once upon installation. And even if all other vendors require you to only enter a license once. ESET is one of the few program left which doesn't require registration/making an account, which is very valuable to me.

    * Eset does not give you an option for a complete system scan on the home screen at all. You have to configure it via a badly labeled ("Selected profile") drop-down menu found only on the options screen.

    Eh, the Smart Scan is already a full scan, but then only for the systemdrive. The only difference between Smart and Full is that Full will do all drives. Also if they think clicking Custom scan and then Full scan is too much of a hassle I am completely lost.

    * Eset's claims of having two home screens, one for experts and one for beginners, are also misleading: If you toggle the system from "Standard mode" to "Advanced mode," the only difference is the addition of a single new option on the taskbar: "Tools," which lets you look at log files, the quarantine list, etc.

    They didn't check out the homescreen again after enabling the advanced mode. Otherwise they would have noticed two new tabs. Just like at some other "main" tabs.

    PCWorld conclusion: Eset Smart Security 4 features such a rare combination of poor security and a baffling settings system that it's impossible to recommend, no matter how fast it is.

    Really, I know ESET is not the absolute topperformer anymore in malware detection (like three years ago). But this review leaves me completely flabbergasted. Also ESET is blocking the same amount of Dynamic test samples as Avira does. They call Avira's security top-notch, and ESET poor? Hmm
     
  12. Scoobs72

    Scoobs72 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2007
    Posts:
    1,108
    Location:
    Sofa (left side)
    25 samples was just the realtime testing. There was the usual scanning of presumably a large number of malware samples.
     
  13. toxinon12345

    toxinon12345 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2010
    Posts:
    1,200
    Location:
    Managua, Nicaragua
    for me, the most reliable and professional testing organizations are AV-Comparatives, VB100 and finally AV-Test.

    However, I think that AV-Test should give more details on how they test.
     
  14. lordraiden

    lordraiden Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2006
    Posts:
    3,075
    I know but use 25 samples for a dynamic test is ridiculous you can get a result one day and the next other result completely different.
    In the avc report the statistical impact of the sample size is very well explained.
    I'm just saying that statistically this results are not representative of the real performance, so is better dont do it to do it bad.
     
  15. codylucas16

    codylucas16 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2009
    Posts:
    267
    I read their review for Comodo and laughed. How is the interface chaotic? How is the installation a pain? Neither of those are really true. I love their interface. The installation is less than difficult. You press a few buttons and restart. I guess clicking a mouse is very hard work for these people at PCWorld
     
  16. trjam

    trjam Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2006
    Posts:
    9,057
    Location:
    North Carolina
    Sorry PCW, I disagree with several of your observations and am sticking with Eset Smart Security.;)
     
  17. toxinon12345

    toxinon12345 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2010
    Posts:
    1,200
    Location:
    Managua, Nicaragua
    How can this test be valid?

    PCWorld's Editors do not even understand something as basic as ESET Graphical User Interface or installation.

    Only from there, they lose all credibility.
     
    Last edited: Dec 28, 2010
  18. Scoobs72

    Scoobs72 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2007
    Posts:
    1,108
    Location:
    Sofa (left side)
    The installation is ok, but I agree with them on the interface - it is chaotic. It's something you have to learn, which is not ideal for novice users.
     
  19. trjam

    trjam Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2006
    Posts:
    9,057
    Location:
    North Carolina
    Reviews, are a dime a dozen.;)
     
  20. SweX

    SweX Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2007
    Posts:
    6,429
    I don't disagree with you:D
     
  21. Thankful

    Thankful Savings Monitor

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2005
    Posts:
    3,736
    Location:
    New York City
    First of all, I also use Eset.
    This test has a similar format to the test done last year by AV-test which
    was displayed by PC world.
    As I stated above, in terms of pure detection, Eset generally does not do well in tests conducted by Av-test. If you look at the history of tests conducted by AV-test, you will see this is true.
    I really don't get too worked up about one test or another.
    The only test that matters to me is that I haven't been infected in the seven years I've been using Eset.
     
  22. icr

    icr Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2008
    Posts:
    1,588
    Location:
    Mumbai
    Even this time also I guessed(W/O even clicking on the Link) norton would be on top and hell yeah I hit the bullzEYE:D :cool: :cool: :cool:
     
  23. xxJackxx

    xxJackxx Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2008
    Posts:
    4,050
    Location:
    USA
    The review of Ksspersky says:
    "Even less excusable: Kaspersky won't install at all unless you register it with an e-mail address."

    Even less excusable than that is printing misinformation and making a statement that it is inexcusable. I have never seen ANY version of a Kaspersky product require an email address to install. Norton on the other hand...
     
  24. dr pan k

    dr pan k Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2007
    Posts:
    204
    "Eset Smart Security 4 features such a rare combination of poor security and a baffling settings system that it's impossible to recommend, no matter how fast it is."

    simply LMAO
     
  25. lordraiden

    lordraiden Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2006
    Posts:
    3,075
    This is what they say when they are "buying" Comodo Complete.
    I can't understand why they didnt test the free version if they didnt test any of the capabilities of the paid one.

    "Installation is a real headache. An exhaustive registration Web page had to be completed--right down to our mailing address--before we ever downloaded the application" :D
    How you want to buy an app without an email at least? :D
     
    Last edited: Dec 28, 2010
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.