PC World AV Chart

If it were the case, AV-Comparatives test results are no longer genuine either (see February 2007 test -- Norton > Bitdefender).

I'm open-minded to any result as long as it is properly tested. This test is done by AV-Test and it is credible. I will not make any prejudgement. Even if it turns out to be "Norton defeats Kaspersky", I am perfectly fine.

 

ive always liked BD,

in my experience it was slower than others as this test shows, but not by much ... even though the percentages dont look good on this test, its not by much.

bd creates a bit more FP's than the others, buts its engine and heuristics are in the right place.

i just wish my drweb was on it

i want to see my drweb on an av-test result-page again.

---------------
norton has always had good detection, definatly up-there as the best with kaspersky.

people who have slagged norton off, usually went for the 'hog/heavy' argument, now they cant use this, so now they go onto the 'no support' argument. *lol*

the fact is the product is a good one.

 

WoW Avast! was the fastest scanner, so much for those who say it slows the PC down......

 

McAfee and NOD32 -- they stepped back, on the downhill.

Kaspersky -- staying on the plateau. Is it ready to go downhill (like others)?

Antivir -- still on the uphill, reached tophill.

PS: I notice NOD32 is especially weak at trojans/keyloggers (it is what I concern most), This test reinforces my observations [NOD32: 89% vs KAV: 97%].

 

I disagree with some things in these tests related to the Support part.

How can they say that Symantec offer 24 hours support but other offer 9 or 12 only , but how they managed to write 13.5

This is not true . Symantec does not provide 24 hour support , at least they never replied to me immediately but lots of hours later.
ESET does not provide 12 hours support because the European HQ works 12 hours but the next 12 hours the USA office is not sleeping . The same applies for Kaspersky and other vendors,too.

How come they say/write that Grisoft/Alwil software offer 0 hours support . This is not true , you can always call them or mail them at least 8 hours per day.

They have either made a very big mistake or I cannot understand what they mean

 

This makes sense. Thanks
I'd guess that if the test bed had been trojans/backdoors/adware/spyware, the proactive detection rates of ALL participants (including ESET) would have descended noticeably.
I'd like to know if the speed test was done on infected samples or a clean system. In clean systems, Antivir (not tested) and NOD 32 are the fastest without doubts.

 

Very good test!

It covers all the areas to choose an AV...

This test show me that I made a correct decision when I changed to a new AV...

 

I stil trust AV-Comp more because in AV-test's september and november test, over 500 000 trojans were used. And I am pretty sure there are not that many released in one year. So they have to be using some old samples. And many other vendors can just add old samples and easily increase the detection rate. Also, Fortinet's detection is quite suspicious. It is probably using its crap technology where it scans certain extensions/packers (I am not entirely sure what it is that it automatically flags) and automatically flags them without scanning the cotnent inside. I dont think AV-Test puts effort into using sampels that Fortinet cant cheat with.

 

base on waht ? they are not tested here. your comments are nonsense.

 

AV-Comparatives has test results of Dr.Web
Sorry to say but the performance of Dr.Web is disappointing (among the lowest of others).
I wish it would have done better.

It just go back to where it should be:
Norton -- good at early ages
Norton -- bad at middle ages
Norton -- good again nowadays

Has Norton solved the bulkiness or stability problem?

 

Who says I only commented based on this test?

One test can't show whether it is on the uphill or downhill. It has to be at least 2 tests.

Anyway, to answer you question, try to read test results released on magazines (AV-test) and AV-Comparatives. Gather all those figures and draw a chart. You will notice such changes.

 

As far as I know, Fortinet will flag as suspicious for files with packers commonly used by malware writers. It is intended to be a paranoid detection only. You need to send the flagged suspicious samples to further investigation.

 

LOL! Avast & AVG has 0 hour of support from Mon to Sun, that is zero support.
A guess. The column header is Support Policy (the blue column). Probably they just take the vendor's word for grant. If they say they will try to provide support all the days 24 hours (their support policy). PC World will fill in three 24. If they can't get the answer, they just fill in 0.

After all, don't treat the whole table as credible simply because they hire AV-Test to supply detection/disinfection etc. test results. Some info are compiled by them. You should verify the info, or take it with a pinch of salt.

 

sure you could say that, but in the last av-test it didnt do too badly

and the heuristics aint too bad either on drweb, so i aint too worried.

plus with big improvements for drweb, loads and loads of them on the way, again i aint too worried.

plus - i did/do already know about av-comp.

i also know about malware-test and although av-comp say its not trustable due to corrupted samples, me and firecat dont quite understand this, drweb scores highly on this test, yet drweb does not detect corrupted samples. hmm (i honestly think its because they use alot of chinese malware, and drweb has great detection for those unlike some... due to its sister company VC)

 

just because they do not do it on purpose it does not mean that the scanner does not do it

 

Yeah. With heuristics a scanner can easily detect corrupted samples even though the vendors don't intentionally do it.

 

not the amount it did..... very very unlikely.

 

I am not saying that it would pcik up a lot of corrupt samples. Just implying that any scanner is capable of picking up corrupt sampels.

 

Go Norton! (still feels weird for me to praise Norton, lol)

On Norton's review:

I shed no tear when I saw Norton disable WinDefender. WD is next to useless anyway and that is one less service I don't need running.

Trend Micro also disabled WD as well when I used it.

As I stated in my review of NIS '07, this UAC triggering can be looked on in two ways. One that was stated about the annoyance but also looking at as protection against the AV itself so you will be alerted if some malware starts messing around with it. If you force a LiveUpdate, it will trigger UAC but if you let it update on it's own it doesn't require it.

Once you have all your settings done, UAC isn't a factor anymore anyway.

 

What IBK and MalwareDie are trying to say is that a signature made for a real sample may certainly flag corrupted samples.
See this very enlightening post.

 

Wow, Kaspersky had the worst adware and second worst dialer detection. If they can remedy those issues, and implement the new heuristics module, I don't think the test results would be so close.

IMHO the main reason Dr. Web wasn't tested is because their product isn't as popular as the others in the roundup. Avira probably falls in this category as well.

I'll spend more time reading the review when I get off work this evening.

 

Yeah popularity is the reason why a lot of products were not tested. i do not believe that is fair though. Avira maybe popular on this forum but in real lfie i hardly know anybody that uses Avira. Just because a product is not popular does not mean it is a bad product.

 

i didnt think nod32 was popular in the real world, yet that was tested.

 

I would think that NOD32 is more popular than Avira. I actually know more NOD32 users than Avira and when i look at sites on google the name NOD32 appears mroe than Avira.

 

the fact that in this test, AVG FREE beat nod32 in detection, is the most worrying part.