PCWorld's Free Antivirus You Can Trust

Discussion in 'other anti-virus software' started by Zyrtec, Apr 30, 2012.

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

    Zyrtec Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2008
    Posts:
    534
    Location:
    USA
  2. Ranget

    Ranget Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2011
    Posts:
    846
    Location:
    Not Really Sure :/
    AVG is Back on high rates of detection ? weird

    anyway i used to use AVG in the past don't know what happened to it now
    but it seem quite resource hog
     
  3. JerryM

    JerryM Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2003
    Posts:
    4,221
    Avira seems to have been lacking recently in the paid versions also.
    Jerry
     
  4. jabarnut

    jabarnut Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2006
    Posts:
    20
    My only comment is that when it comes to Antivirus testing, PCWorld articles have never been on the top of my list as far as thorough testing, the number of products tested, and their results.
    "Free Antivirus You Can Trust"? Well, maybe so.
    Do I trust PCWorld? Well, maybe. Maybe not. ;)
     
    Last edited: Apr 30, 2012
  5. Montmorency

    Montmorency Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2011
    Posts:
    181
    Same here.
     
  6. KelvinW4

    KelvinW4 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2011
    Posts:
    1,199
    Location:
    Los Angeles, California
    Hmm look at threatfire there :rolleyes:
     
  7. Threatfire thats still exist?
     
  8. KelvinW4

    KelvinW4 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2011
    Posts:
    1,199
    Location:
    Los Angeles, California
    Yeah, its still developed but really sloooooooooooooooooowly
     
  9. wtsinnc

    wtsinnc Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2008
    Posts:
    943
    I wonder if the vendors are required to pay for inclusion as they are with A-V Comparatives ?

    Avira, once my favorite has slipped out of favor with many of us due to their in-your-face style of self-promotion.
     
  10. Wow, thank you for verifying that. I appreciate it
     
  11. Baserk

    Baserk Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2008
    Posts:
    1,317
    Location:
    AmstelodamUM
    I'd like to know the heuristic levels used on the AV's and also for ThreatFire.
    At level 5 it will go off like Defense+ at Paranoid. 100% blocking shouldn't be a surprise then.
     
  12. SweX

    SweX Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2007
    Posts:
    6,429
    I am impressed by PCAV, but they really should try to improve the on-demand scanning. I mean only because it's a almost fully cloud based AV doesn't mean it need to take that long to make an on-demand scan.(not a big issue for me personally but I know others have complained). And also stop using plugins and incorporate into the core instead.

    But we'll see what 2.0 will bring :thumb:
     
  13. cheater87

    cheater87 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2005
    Posts:
    3,122
    Location:
    Pennsylvania.
    Do they have D+ and sandbox enabled with Comodo? Also Comodo has just an AV with D+ available with no firewall.
     
  14. carat

    carat Guest

    PC Tools AV Free has great signature-based detection (Norton?) but unfortunately no behaviour blocking and rootkit detection :doubt:

    I would use AVG or Avast, Panda Cloud AV is light but there is no indicator for the cloud connection, don't forget Bohu :ninja:
     
  15. RejZoR

    RejZoR Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2004
    Posts:
    6,426
    I find it a bit strange for Comodo to perform so poorly. I mean i know their scanner is nothing to braga bout but Defense+ usually does the rest of the job. Apparently they tested only signature part...
     
  16. Yash Khan

    Yash Khan Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2011
    Posts:
    1,837
    I think signature too did good if not great.
     
  17. get_it

    get_it Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2007
    Posts:
    99
    Comodo's signatures are junk. Too many false positives. And when all else fails, Default Deny policy kicks in. It is good that the signature element was tested and exposed. Their firewall however is good.
     
  18. kjdemuth

    kjdemuth Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2005
    Posts:
    2,960
    Location:
    Boston, MA
    I agree that comodo's signatures are nothing to write home about. I wouldn't say that they are junk though. There are worse AV solutions out there. Comodo's AV portion of CIS has improved over the last couple of years. To say that it is junk is unfounded speculation on your part and unfair.
     
  19. Dark Shadow

    Dark Shadow Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2007
    Posts:
    4,553
    Location:
    USA
    I tried comodo over the years and recently on a netbook with no false positives or detections either, but what weakness the AV may have the Defense system more then makes up for it.
     
  20. kjdemuth

    kjdemuth Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2005
    Posts:
    2,960
    Location:
    Boston, MA
    Very true. D+ is a great HIPS. I do agree that the AV is not the greatest. Hence why I don't run it myself. If it's the only AV that you use then it is better than some others out there.
     
  21. smage

    smage Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2008
    Posts:
    377
    Zero day detection/protection

    Comodo 78.6 + "partially" blocked 21.4%
    MBAM 78.6% + "partially" blocked 14.3%
    Panda 85.7% + nothing
    AVG 85.7% + nothing
    Avast 78.6% + nothing
    MSE 71.4% + nothing
    Avira 70.4% + nothing
    Pc Tools 57.1% + nothing

    Not that bad for Comodo.
    78.6 + 21.4 = 100%. The 21.4% most likely came from dropped files.
     
  22. Brummelchen

    Brummelchen Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2009
    Posts:
    1,732
    ofc detection and disabling is more=better, but removal is futile.
    PCAV is slow due is cloud behavior?
    But 100% detection is lol - PC Tools was overtaken by Symantec IMO.
     
  23. Dark Shadow

    Dark Shadow Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2007
    Posts:
    4,553
    Location:
    USA
    Agree
     
  24. Baserk

    Baserk Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2008
    Posts:
    1,317
    Location:
    AmstelodamUM
    The 100% isn't about detection but 'blocking' samples.
    With Defense+ that shouldn't be too difficult but without details on what settings were used; vanilla install or Defense+ at 'paranoid', such numbers mean little imo.
     
  25. Noob

    Noob Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2009
    Posts:
    6,468
    The last time i tested PCAV (6 months ago) On Demand scans still took a VERY LOOOOONG time.
    Not sure aout now but i guess they should've improved it already. :rolleyes:
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.