What's up with AV-Comparatives

Number of signatures != number of detected malware. (Other than that, I very much doubt there are thousands of new viruses created every day, plus tons of them are just variants of the old stuff.)

 

Thats the crux of the problem, how dare a free AV outscore a highly paid one.......its preposterous

 

Re: AV Comparatives August 2008! On Demand

I agree,I had used Avast in the past from its first creation yr after yr minus any infection.In fact the times I had been infected was using a paid AV but that also may have been from a more adventures surfing or downloading.I also seen avast detect and clean with its boot scan a nice feature indeed.That said folks should not sell avast short its offered protection for free or paid it updates are effortless and the company is always improving on its product.

 

This just happened to me tonight, no word of a lie.

I read that you can use the OEM 2008 license to activate the trial 2009 Norton. It worked a charm.

I already use Avira Premium and shortly after installing Norton 09, its SONAR reported a trojan, I thought FP straight away. I had a look at "Security History" and it shows it made communication with Nortons server sending a sample and thereafter reported the threat to me. Looking at the details, it was a exe in a hidden folder in my recycle bin. There was also a registry key under HKLM\Software\Microsoft\ActiveSetup\InstalledComponents\{CLSID}. It reaffirms to me that being already infected does not always give solid signs. I have no idea what this thing does but knowing it was in memory and running without consent is not a good thing.

 

So If I read correct you are saying Avira had missed what norton has found.

 

Are you also running programs like SAS or MBAM?

 

Re: What's up with AV-Comparatives?

Hi, the rating for that site has now been corrected on Norton Safe Web -

http://safeweb.norton.com/report/sh....225/babelfish/translate_url_content?.intl=us

 

I too have used Avira with many FP's a newbee would delete good files, I knew better I wouldn't recommend it, Avast has the same FP's I was shocked at how many, it's easy to get good detection just create a AV that says everything is a trojan & the user can decide,that is not good software, Also remember that every user & machine is different...

 

Well its better than creating one that doesn't detect any

 

Re: What's up with AV-Comparatives?

You seem to forget that with maximum settings Norton had a 99% detection rate! With default settings it had a score of 97,4%. And even with maximum settings Norton had not many false positives!

 

denniz: yes, but compare symantecs proactive detection (previous test) to that of some of the high-scorers there. Almost no proactive detection also means lesser risk of false positives.

 

If you also look at that last report, there is a note that Kaspersky 8 and Nortons newer technology would have scored 42 percent and 41 percent respectively. With the possibility of low FPs for both this would have rasied them to Advance for proactive detection.

 

Well the previous proactive test wasn't a very in depth test. Here's a noted quote from the previous proactive test of May 2008:

Also Norton 2009 wasn't tested, but Norton 2008 was. So until I see the proactive test results of November 2008 in which Norton 2009 will be tested, I will withdraw from making any conclusions about whether or not Norton 2009 has decent proactive detection.

 

Agree, but that may hold true for changes or the possibility of them, for all vendors.

 

Re: What's up with AV-Comparatives?

Thanks for the update, Andy

And welcome to Wilder's.

 

I would rather have the 17 FP's that Avira got in the test.. then the +70K of missed samples.. But that's just IMO.

 

of course 'you' would, but are you even aware of the technology in your own av, you never ask yourself that?

 

I'm not sure why that is even relevant. Who cares what the technology is, as long as it works?

 

Who cares about tech.......it works and works every time tests are thrown at it, thats all that matters in at the end of the day.

 

Ok, so it detects "everything" cleans "nothing" and due to the high number of FPs you may be deleting something that might just make your PC worthless. Yep, winner in my book.

 

well there is some reasons. you have got one approach which means the companie are lazy and just add basically anything to the database and detect anything packed as malware. and malware from tests they just get computers to add it to the database. a human doesnt even bother to look at it. forget about removal of malware on an already infected machine.
the above refers to avira
the below refers to companies such as drweb,kaspersky labs and f-secure. there is more but that was a few examples.
or you get a dedicated companie that work hard to make sure there customers are protected and optimize there datebase.
they dont cheat and detect anything packed as malware. they work hard. everytime someone sends in a sample a human analyses it and sends an email back to the person who sends it in saying if its malware or not and the name. if its an fp the user will be told and also when it will be fixed normally in the next update.

 

17 FPs and yes, after running it for years on various PCs, they all got hosed as it deleted system files.....dunno how I manage to make it to Wilders everyday........and btw, according to tests it detects and cleans as well. You can't clean if you don't detect Since you don't detect, you remain happy with a false sense of security thinking your are all clean and safe. Avira is lazy, they keep winning every time and has the best detection, so if thats lassitude.....wonder what hard work will bring.

 

You know, it's okay to have a personal opinion, but whenever one resorts to gross exaggerations to try to peddle that opinion, that's when their credibility really takes a nosedive...

 

If they're lazy, why would they add everything? That seems to go against the very definition of lazy. They're so lazy that they constantly update their database with new signatures... hmm.

And why is detecting anything packed as malware such a bad thing? The approach seems to work, and it's not like Avira is topping the FP count either.

 

as i pointed out using a computer to add basically anything to the database,that is lazy.