Discussion in 'other anti-virus software' started by King Grub, Feb 21, 2012.
Emsisoft at the top:
Ikarus + Emsi engine does wonders !
Comodo second !
and vipre higher than bitdefender
Also kaspersky so low results
Oops, a "testing" site that sells the best-performing products via affilation?
test seems bit odd in terms of general trend of results.
Kaspersky at 85.6%? Very Doubtful.
I've never been a Kaspersky user, but this test seems very fishy.
Based on a first look, the products that are near the top on this test are those which have a lot of "malicious packer" or "PUP" detections. I'd raise questions about the sample set, but I'm no expert.
And 500 samples doesnt represent real world anyway.
If you ask me, I think it could be very close to being accurate.
Just how many does it take?
One is enough for real world. if your AV doesnt catch it.
Nah. I might agree with you except for Kaspersky.
Product of the year at Av-Comparatives and highest score at
recent Av-Test with only 85.6% here. I'd have to agree with Firecat
about the sample set.
Well I am not a expert so I dont know. Everyday more than 80.000 malware strains are created daily , so they tested approximately 0,625 % of zero day malware ( in theory of course) .
Maybe a expert can help us , this test is statistic valid?
Ps: And i agree with you , one is enough for a user , but not for Statistics.
Interesting that the Russian suites did so poorly on a Russian review site. If anything there is no bias toward local products.
[Edited by author]
I agree with you, but some people like to treat all results as valid no matter the source. I disagree with such people because I've seen some really questionable "sources".
If the source isn't going to be trustworthy enough to follow the scientific method, then we should probably disregard them.
Now, these results may be valid and reliable to an extent; I am not sure. I would take these results with a few grains of salt, personally, based on what others have said.
Huh? What are you talking about?
There were quite a few tests unfavorable to Webroot regarding zero day testing such as MRG,
AV-Test (zero day). I am currently using Webroot.
No need to defend yourself here. That came out of left field.
The settings they use seem inconsistent. For example:
avast! Internet Security:
Kaspersky Internet Security:
"Heuristic analysis put the average level"
Taken from here using Google Translate.
Avast has a lot of shields but overall ...
An expert has already commented in this thread.
Oh you know what...how embarrassing. I am so sorry, I confused you with someone else. There was that other guy I was thinking of (can't remember his name now) who implied that he'll treat results off the street as good as AV-Comparatives.
Nevermind. My apologies.
Agree on that,
But if AV makers actually pay to have their product tested it is even worse
It's good to have more testers, and it is bad that there seems to
be no AV-vendor-money-independed testers.
Because all testers seem to have a financial/business relation with vendors,
it is even more important that a organization like AMTSO (www.amtso.org) ,
(AMTSO: "Anti-Malware Testing Standards Organization") certify which tests we can trust.
Since most of the big vendors are AMTSO member.
Personally i think that should be the most important task for AMTSO.
Separate names with a comma.