PCWorld's Free Antivirus You Can Trust

For those interested on the reading [see link below]:

http://www.pcworld.com/article/254121/free_antivirus_you_can_trust.html#tk.hp_fv



Carlos

 

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

 

Avira seems to have been lacking recently in the paid versions also.
Jerry

 

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.

 

Same here.

 

Hmm look at threatfire there

 

Threatfire thats still exist?

 

Yeah, its still developed but really sloooooooooooooooooowly

 

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.

 

Wow, thank you for verifying that. I appreciate it

 

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.

 

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

 

Do they have D+ and sandbox enabled with Comodo? Also Comodo has just an AV with D+ available with no firewall.

 

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

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

 

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...

 

I think signature too did good if not great.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

Agree

 

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.

 

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.