What's up with AV-Comparatives

I occasionally use an AV. I stopped using one (Nod32) systematically a year ago because I thought in normal circumstances with virtualized systems they are not really needed. Then my son's computer started behaving strangely, I ran first Nod32 to check what the situation was, and it detected nothing.

Just to double check, I also ran Avira, and surprise... 8 malware files were detected. I was honestly shocked and put the files to the scrutiny of Virus Total which were confirmed as malware by a good number of AVs.

The bottom line is that a lot of posters in this thread don't believe in any AV tests as they can be flawed or inaccurate, my experience is real (anybody who cares to check, they can do a search of my past threads). That doesn't mean Nod32 isn't a good AV, but Avira is doing a better job at the moment. As I said, I usually download Avira free for short periods (I do live dangerously sometimes, because of my job), but recently I wanted to pay (literally)tribute to this remarkable company, and bought the Premium version.

 

I think no one questions Avira's malware detection capabilities, and I do believe that those tests give some, or a good direction about these capabilities. But I don't believe this should be the only quality that people should evaluate when selecting different products.

 

Maybe, but it sure as heck would be number one in my book as far as selection. Number 2 would be price.

 

I'm sorry but the point of a AV is to protect and detect. If it cant do ether but runs on the system well. Then wtf is the point in having it? you might as well load placebo if you think having a little Icon down there is comforting. Tests are good at showing detection that is the MAIN point of a AV. If a AV cant Detect and it cant protect then its simply a waste of space. no matter how good it runs. Or how loyal you are to them.

 

Well, wtf would be the point in using software _FOR EXAMPLE_, that detects well but updating crashes or failes, drivers cause blue screens, you see noticable slowdowns, or it produces other random errors .. or simply, annoys the hell out of you otherwise? If you hint that "detection less than avira -> equals placebo or only a little icon in tray", I have to say I'm sorry for you.

I don't mean Avira, or point to any specific products here.

 

Are you implying Avira causes these problems? Or other AVs?

The only problem I've had with Avira is that update servers are sometimes slow, but only if using the free version. The paid version has faster/more stable updates. And if you're gonna compare it with Dr.Web I think it's fair to compare the paid version - after all, Dr.Web dont have a free version

What I'm saying is that there are many AVs that uses little RAM, CPU etc., like Avira, Kaspersky, Dr.Web and even Norton 2009 (who would have guessed that a year ago )

Therefor it's natural to look at detection rates,because it's the most important job for any AV. And while you can run several ondemand scanners, only 1 is recommended for realtime. Therefor the one you choose should be able to detect as much as possible.

 

No, those were just an examples what can happen since people have different hardware, different operating systems, different software running simultaneously to the AV. And I'm not marketing Dr.Web with that post. Just trying to point out that there are at least to me, valid reasons to search for alternative software.

And I'm not bashing any products here, or so. What I'm saying is: that there is a lot more to these software than just pure detection and these should be evaluated as an "overall image"(not sure how to put my thoughts in english)and not just pure numbers.

 

Of course that would be the best/ideal choise then if it works well and does the detection. But if it causes problems, would you still use it or select a non problematic alternative? .. this is what I'm trying to say

 

If all that were left were crap detection products. I would prob just move to Image and sandbox and call it good. No point in wasting good money if it wont protect you anyhow.

 

risl,
Some of us here do get what your saying, myself included.

 

I have had a subscription to NOD32 for the last 4 years. I was able to purchase a Kaspersky license at a reasonable price and have been using it for the last year on my main machine using the NOD32 and Avira free on two other laptops.

I tried V3 of Nod32 and it worked well for me. V2 used less memory, was a smaller program, but both functioned well. I did not see much difference in scanning time on either Nod, Avira or Kas. I believe you can turn off the Avira splash screen through the options menu. It doesn't stay on very long anyhow. Nod has anti-spyware, e-mail scanning and web filtering which the avira free does not. IMHO any of these programs are quite good.

 

I completely agree that if one had no infections using a particular AV there is no urgent need for a change. I had Nod32 for 2 years, and not only I didn't get infected but it detected close to 70 malware files in that period (I don't ever test malware, some environments are very infected e.g. university students' flashdrives).

The reason I stopped using Nod32 was ultimately my growing disbelief in the security offered by AVs in general: My virtual/sandbox/image recovery system is far more reliable than all AVs together.

Why do I use Avira? First I think if your license is due for renewal, to look around checking which company is doing fine, and choosing accordingly is called healthy competition (I don't get married with any of my softwares!).

Secondly, Avira and Avast are the only companies with a great marketing strategy, that is they supply a top notch product free for home users. It works, I would have never tried Avira if it hadn't been for their free high quality product. I think if all AVs had a free version available for home users, there wouldn't be any more viruses circulating on the net.

Thirdly, in highly infected environments there is a possibility to run into malware that might disable my virtual system, but any AV would be good for such a purpose.

I also believe that one has to choose according to the impact of the software on a particular system: Between great detection and slowing down significantly a system, I'd prefer a faster system with average detection, that's what trial periods are suppose to determine.

 

Avira works fine on all different cross section of hardware and in its record much to its credit, it has caused least issues past or present. OTOH, other greats have been known to hose OS,delete personal files, BSOD, slowdowns and the rougue's list goes on. Some people have never run any AV and yet when an AV was installed, nothing was found, however that doesn't mean rest should run nude.....its always a matter of chance.

 

Do numbers have a substantial impact on why I spend my money on an anti-virus? You're darned skippy that they do! AntiVir not so long ago was an 'also-ran' AV with a silly name for a file scanner (Luke Filewalker, and yes, it's still silly!) until Avira decided to get real serious. Now, I don't feel truly safe online unless I have an Avira product running on-access. AntiVir Premium has proven itself to me by bitch-slapping anything that tried to wend its way onto my system(s) either by my intentionally treading in dangerous waters, lame drive-by file droppers, and nasty worms unknowingly sent by my non-tech friends and relatives via email attachments. I tried and continue to try many new iterations of many, many products, but keep coming back to AntiVir. I'll be 49 on my next birthday, so I won't take being called a fan "boy"!

 

If detection is good, chances of getting infected and the need for HIPS are not that relevant here.

 

That 8GB can surely be put to better use

 

This is very true.

 

There is......and its free by doing proper practice. Secure browser, fully patched system, DEP, LUA and SRP, combine that with Avira and its a fortress.

 

ROFLMAO Fortress, Fortress, did you say Fortress.

 

Fortress=A fortified defensive structure

 

Even in those tests which were far from being pertinent to detection, Avira excelled.

 

that was you using Nod last week wasn't it? & if he uses a layered approach how could that not be preceived as a fortress?,

 

first Larry, it was meant as humor. But to me a fortress mean impenetrable. And no combo offers that. I never knock Eset. Own a 2 user license.

 

Well technically with the right strategy a Fortress is penetrable as well as history proves but its hard, same goes for good security layer.

 

One Fortress that I see impenetrable would simply be No Ethernet connection or any connection to the main computer. = Owned if you never plug anything in you don't know.