Discussion in 'other anti-virus software' started by nodyforever, Dec 5, 2007.
I cant read in the magazine. 4 FP appears on Avira Test History:
Yes interesting statement. Everyone is quite negative towards Quick Heal AV and there DNA (Packer detection) but if they are doing so well on VB100% tests maybe its worth another look.
I do notice that they add samples pretty quickly that have been submitted to VirusTotal so must have quite an active LAB!
Do you know why F-Prot fails?
Thanks for the reply. I had not really noticed it before, but maybe it is worth a look. I don't think IBK has tested it, but not sure why.
Its detection rate is way below the required minimum to participate. IMO, passing VB100 tests only means that you don't have too much FPs, because detecting something so small and meaningless (the Wildlist) is a trivial task.
Note: the malware samples used by VB are more than those included in the WildList, but the WL is the main thing to be detected by the AVs.
It was surprising to me that Kaspersky missed one and failed.
And they said IBK was tough.
You're absolutely kidding yourself if you think passing VB100% is tougher than getting an Advanced in AV-C. I can only assume your post was made either in humor or sarcasm.
I use Avast which does well in the AV Comparatives, and just because it failed this test with two FP's doesn't bother me a bit. Come on enough with this already. I ain't afraid of no False Positive. LOL.
Kaspersky failed !!! Damn, I thought people say Kaspersky's detection is really good. Its good I took them off my machine.
LOL! So did Avira and its tops in detection, doesn't make one hell of a difference.
Now back to my point before the un-necessary rude interruption. Point being would this test or its ratings make KAV customers throw their AV out, I seriously doubt it. Based on KAV's and Avira's past and present records, tests notwithstanding, those who use them will stick to them regardless. Maybe the FPs will make them a bit wary but I certainly don't envision them throwing out their preferred apps based on one or two tests. Its not the end of the world for KAV nor Avira.
I hope the tester from VB mag keeps updating his testset. Getting the 100% button was way too easy!
On the other hand, the test also doesn't reflect the real world protection of the products.
Don't let this single test fool you
Exactly what I meant.........this won't make people dump the AV just because its not rated. The only impact it might make is with newbies who need an AV, they might get swayed by these ratings.
note the sarcastic smileys. You should know me better then that.
O.k. guys (you know who you are), six unnecessary sarcastic posts have been removed. Any more and the thread will be closed.
Man, the atmosphere in this post is heating up.
Is that supposed to be a sarcastic comment? I mean Avira FAILED.
~removed un-necessary and off topic verbage....Bubba~
Avira failed, so did KAV and others, does that mean we will condemn them and throw them out of the arena totally.
not at all. KAV missed a virus which is not so nice for them, as it was pretty old. Avira gave 2 FPs, but anyway it detected all the viruses which seems good to me.
anyone noticed the tests were updated (again) ?
now it says Avast! false positive 1 , Avira false positive 2 and i think some other results differs ...
To me, getting a FP is a lot less serious than missing a threat. If I get a FP on a file I will quarantine or at worse delete it but if the program fails to detect the threat, my pc gets infected, I lose data etc.
I also don't understand why some people say failing a single test is not relevant and we should not change our decisions based on it. Maybe its ok because these were old viruses, but that still doesn't inspire me with confidence.
So for people who are not knowledgable (i.e. post in these forums), how should they make the right decision. Can't trust pcmag etc, can't trust review sites, now they can't even go by such a major test?!
Let's stick to the thread topic Please and dispense with those type comments directed toward other members.
One false positive.
Apparently the FP had been fixed shortly after the files had been submitted, but apparently still before the test commenced.
Separate names with a comma.