Whole Product Dynamic Test May 2012

Thats a ~Phrase removed~ policy and the reason why i prefer avast! over everyone else. They don't play moral police, they just do their job properly. So, if a No-CD patch is detected as malware and is not actually a malware, they'll fix the FP.
It's how everyone should play. If it's detected as something else than what it is, it shouldn't be detected at all or at least have a correct detection.

In case of the above app they should add detection under a proper name.
Rollback Rx Vulnerability (PUP) or something...

 

As far as I can recall,ESET is always good(not the best) in av-comparatives
their score has been fallen in av-test

upload them here:

http://www.threattrack.com/
hera is also a choice,I found their analysis the best:

https://www.microsoft.com/security/portal/Submission/Submit.aspx

 

It's like asking the police for protection while you are robbing a bank. I'm glad that there are security companies that don't waste resources in protecting internet parasites: the people that take away other persons' work and leave nothing in return.

Thank you for the heads up, Avira, Comodo, Sophos, and Symantec are companies that I will support from now on.

 

The hashes mentioned above relate to QuickbooksRegCrack.exe and at virustotal 22 vendors out of 42 currently detect it. It's a registration crack so the debate could be whether it should be detected as such.

Regarding Rollback Rx, I remember discussions about Prevx detecting some of its files due to the program's rootkit-like behaviours. (See this post from PrevxHelp from ages ago.)

 

in the graph there in no yellow color (the level of user dependency) in kaspersky's column , and i just dont know why , for example pc tools reached the top mostly because of yellow color, while kaspersky which has a lot of options for user , didn't !!
any ideas ?

 

Kaspersky have more automatic security by default

 

fine , but why did they consider that for pc tools and not for kaspersky.

maybe kaspersky would kiss the top if they consider the options such as HIPS ( beside pre-defined auto configurations) .

but they did it for pc tools, this is exactly what i cant understand

 

The HIPS is one of the most advanced Ive ever seen. In fact, the heuristic analysis allow low number of HIPS requests.

 

that's another thing , u right.

but what do they define the term "user dependent" exactly ?

i suppose it should be "only HIPS and requests from user to decide ". is there anything else rather than HIPS in the "User dependency " ?

 

I would like to see Microsoft be included in these tests to see how well it does.

 

Some reputation services flag completely new programs as dangerous because it is unknown to the community.
That is a False positive and the fact the user is asked before doing something with the file, turn the incorrect detection as user dependant.

 

Thanks for posting the results, Thankful.
I'm happy to see VIPRE holding its own nicely in this test.
VIPRE actually performed better than
avast,
AVG,
Avira,
F-Secure,
McAfee and
Webroot.

 

That's something what is on my mind since i started using AV!!
I have used Avast for like 3 years and ESET for last 1 Year, I don't want my AV to perform 99% all the times!!! Sometimes I do feel like changing the AV just to use something new but always come back to Avast or ESET disappointed!!
I can't stand any other AV more than 24 Hrs.!!

 

Not F-Secure.

 

This month. Lets see what June brings.

 

My mistake.
The names and columns don't line up so good.
I was reading the results for Fortinet instead of F-Secure.

Corrected list should read:
VIPRE actually performed better than
avast,
AVG,
Avira,
Fortinet,
McAfee and
Webroot

 

But of course!
It's not like these things never change.

 

If only Chinese vendors (Tencent QQ Doctor/Qihoo SafeGuard) would try to release their products to the English market. I'd be interested in trying their products. I can't even find a way to contact their support to ask about their English plans since I don't speak Chinese.

 

Someone knows the version used for avast?

 

I guess you may not know about "Automated False Positives" - http://research.pandasecurity.com/automated-false-positives/

When 1 vendor adds the detection, other follow like sheep.

An AV's job is to determine if the file is malicious or not.

If an AV company won't remove false positive detection, because it is used to get the software for free, then you should strongly consider whether this AV company will purposely not detect State Sponsored Attack Software.

They will say no no this software is by 'design', you have nothing to fear if you have nothing to hide.

F-Secure and Kaspersky are both tied at 99.1%, and they are able to achieve this score without the need to keep what we know are false positive detections.

 

Could you be more explicit? I don't know what you're talking about.

 

Flawed analogy. The mandate of the police is to enforce the law. AV companies have no such mandate.

 

Do a search, I don't want to hurt anybody's feelings.
hint: page 1 in this thread

 

ESET? They scored bad at AV-Test.org recently, not on AV-Comparatives.