Update - AV-comparatives dynamic test: September 2012

agreed about trend WOW .....

 

Ummmmmmmmmmmm. Show me where I ever said anything negative about WSA before? I have not.

 

1: I didn't know 99.4% blocked was considered bad.

2: It has worked better for me in reality than any test claims, across several hundred seats and numerous oft-infected repeat offenders who have not managed to successfully screw up past it. So I will still continue to say that reality is real and the tests that are trying to fake up reality are only successfully faking, not being very accurate at the reality part.

 

I think you need glasses cause the green bar only shows 88.2% blocked.

 

You speak it as you see it.I respect that,no beating around the bush so to speak.

 

Why not. I think its pathetic that whenever new test results come out everyone whines and complains. Just deal with it. FYI..................Green is what matters people. Heck I have seen less whining in a delivery room.

 

If it is Avira 2013 being tested, I can't see any improvement in detection from the previous version.

 

Could not agree more.Look at ESET a Very popular here at wilders but as of late people are saying its not what it use to be and maybe thats true, but IMO it still has respectable numbers detection and false positives and still remains light on system.For the many using WSA if your not getting infected then either WSA is doing a good service for them or there doing something wright or both.

 

Although one could argue that BitDefender, F-Secure, Gdata, Kaspersky, and Trendmicro have done exceptionally well for a long time now, we are talking about 100% or very close, it is no fluke with these companies. why don't I switch? I'm concerned about system impact, but I might start testing on my own computer rather than rely on bits and pieces of evidence.

 

I am not being a fanboy but I experience NO system impact with BD. Nothing what so ever.

 

Agree, if my kids 2 netbooks with 2 cores of little intel Atoms could pull of Bitdefender, then it should not be a issue for any one running a real processor.

 

Gdata should be a concern because from what I have heard it impacts a lot of systems,it has always been heavy. IDK if thats changed any but I tend to doubt it.

 

That's why I'm using G Data now, they finally made their AV lighter... at last

 

Thanks macstorm, I love the GUI and will have to give it a try when I pick up a new windows laptop.

 

YW Dark I hope you'll like it as much as I do now.

I really can't believe how the AV has changed for the better in short time (in terms of "heaviness") since its initial 23.0.0.19 build to the current latest v23.0.5.9.

 

Don't forget Roboscan uses BD too. It is supposed to be light, and it's free.

 

Interesting Trend Micro score. Has anyone else ever reached 100% detection? I know Symantec came very close but it still wasn't 100% in this test. I wonder how trigger happy was with false positives, because usually what has awesome detection (beyond anything else) also has horrible false positives...

 

Green or yellow are the same to me. I don't use WSA but their results in this test seem very good to me.

Bitdefender IS a brick for everyone I know, by the way.

 

Then you lack understanding on how WSA works and the type of warnings you get (yellow part) or just deliberately do not consider it (i.e. pointless criticism to WSA). Free to bend statistics at your wish but you should at least respect other that do consider the overall results not just part of it.

 

No. I think he was referring to the fps's. ;-) We all know the marketing song "best product...no fp's..."

Cause the WPDT uses malicious url's and url's with links to malicious sites this is a realistic case and so also home users will see such prompts sometimes. And if a user must decide it is user depended and not blocked. So all ok.

What really is annoying: Everytime a test appears the WSA discussion starts - with haters, fanboys and marketing guys.

First was said there were some internal problems but they were solved. Test results remained bad. Later was said WSA is only good in some regions. Later the tests were wrong/not efficient because the product works different and can reverse infections. (But some things malware does can't be reversed) Let's guess what the next excuses will be.

 

The real problem is that regardless of the results (e.g. WSA improved radically in this test as compared to previous months) WSA is always bad/junk/you name it. There is something really smelly in this and surely an hidden agenda by some of users in here

 

i really wish someone from AV-C come here and define the " User dependent " exactly.. and let us know how they rate it and clarify the whole doubt.

 

This should be rather straighforward. When you visit a malicious site you will get this:



Default action is "Close" but you still need to push it. I guess this is the user dependent action.

 

User Dependent = User Interaction

It's that easy. Just like any HIPS. "Do you want to allow or block this". Basicly to sum it up "We think this may be dangerous so block it. It's up to you if you want to allow it". Reminds me a lot of Comodo. Fax.....I am we'll aware of how WSA works. But anytime you leave the decision making in the hands if a user it's dangerous. Especially a noob. Green means pass. Yellow means caution. Just like a traffic light.