What's up with AV-Comparatives

the people that PAID for the other AV's.... I'm sorry that one was wide open I had to take it.

On a serious note tho no reason to shoot any of them down. that last test there all doing pretty well some fell, some climbed such is life in tests. whats nice about it all is you can start to see a pattern. that helps you see the history of a AV in the way its tested. and what progress they are making.

 

Lots of people with lots to say. As I am.

What I'm saying is that there is more to the story than high detection.
How is resource usage? Does it cause sluggishness? How many FP's does it report? Can it actually clean infections?

In my experience as a customer, Kaspersky is best at cleaning infections, it also has lower FP's. NOD32 is a balance of detection, cleaning and very low resource usage.

There's my view.

 

I don't. I have been using Avira Premium for over a year and rarely see a FP. I find it interesting that Kaspersky has more FP's than Avira in the current on-demand comparative.

 

See thats vanity and sadly...........it has absolutely no cures.

 

For Generalization. MOST AV's do the following. a lot of the TOP av's out there have LOW resource usage. between 4-15 megs seems to be the avg.

Most WONT cause sluggishness. I have tested most the ones in that list.

Every AV has False positives. I think some people were pointing out Kaspersky had a bunch this time around. but you know what come next test that can all change. Every av evolves and changes what they feel needs to be changed..

As for cleaning. well my point of view on this has always been I much rather never been infected then have to worry about cleaning. but that's just my view.


EDIT.
I did want to Add one thing.. that makes a difference for me.. Customer Service. its a Must when you deal with company's infrastructures on a daily basis. the one thing no company likes is to have something blow up in there face and have the tech saying I'm waiting on there Response.. that never comes. to me that weighs heavily on who I choose.

 

Good points..... I prefer low FP's myself. And any slowdowns or sluggishness caused by an AV is pretty much intolerable for me also. As for cleaning, it's great if it cleans well, however, I prefer to keep it off the machine to begin with, rather than try to clean up a mess and worry if that succeeded or failed. Faced with infection or problems, I'd prefer to restore an image or even reformat if necessary, so I guess cleaning ability, while nice, is lower on my list of priorities in an AV. I don't much care how much ram the AV uses, having 4 gigs here. It can use 200mb ram for all I care...

Seems to me that many of the AVs are more than adequate now. I don't feel I have to have the best in detection as long as I have very good detection. And I would rather sacrafice a bit of detection if I have to, in order to have less FP's. But many would disagree on that one....

 

In terms of responsiveness, impact on system and the best track record of minimal issues with updates, Avira has been on top as well, never in its record has it been known to hose the OS and ruin the customer's data unlike others. That also speaks volumes about its developer's quality and commitment.

 

I find the results for Set B to be interesting. It looks like malware authors are making more malware then ever with less detections from av's.

 

I think the operative term has to be did have. Obviously, this will have been corrected for all vendors that flagged FPs meaning if they were tested again now, those same FPs wouldn't show up.

 

Hi all,

I have been reading the latest AV-Comparatives report referring to the on-demand detection of some of the main AVs on the market.

However, there is a section of the report I don't fully understand.

There is a row for SCRIPT MALWARE and form what I've seen that row is where nearly all AVs tested by AV-Comparatives get the lower score. Why is that? Don't some AVs have http scanning or script blocking?

What is Script Malware and how can a computer user be affected by it? Borwsing, surfing?

Thanks in advance for your answers since I'm not such an expert on computers.

Carlos

 

Re: AV Comparatives August 2008! On Demand

im still going to use nod32 antivirus, because my subscription is still active. maybe after it expire i go back to avg or norton 2009.

nod32 maybe not the best in this test but for me it runs like heaven in my pc. and very few false positive with only 7 false positive. unlike those in the top like avira which has i think 17 and avast with 48 false positive i think.

i read the report of av comparatives. and concluded that in the overall performance NORTON 2009 stands out at the top. its scanning speed, the fastest. it detection rates is advanced plus, false positive few. so its the overall winner for me.

Kaspersky sucks this time with lots of false positive. so as avira always detecting even if its a legal software.

guys remember this is only detection test. IT'S NOT CLEANING WHAT IT DETECTED. and AVIRA is not good in cleaning remember that.

Avast with advanced + wow! but very many false positive. ha ha ha. avast is a poor antivirus on my opinion, with no proactive protection and keeps on detecting those generic infection with no accurate or specific details on what it detected.

 

I wouldn't say Kaspersky sucks in the test. And I haven't had a false positive with the new version. The trust it has built up with me is better than with some high scoring AVs there anyway.

 

Re: AV Comparatives August 2008! On Demand

Wow.. so bash everything that did better in the tests then your AV. that sounds mature. and just a FYI you can ONLY CLEAN what you can DETECT.

If you have crap detection cleaning mean's jack. I much rather stop it at the door before letting it roam my house so to speak. trusty old back up software is the ultimate cleaning.

All the AV's have + and - to them. don't be suckered it saying this one is worst then this one or vice versa. use what works for you but don't knock what you don't understand.

 

Despite test results I'll stick with FS, have blind faith in the DeepGuard technology, it performs verrry well in my own in-house 'minitests'

Straight detection comparative, no HIPS was tested. Next year, hopefully..

I'm looking forward for the english version of GData AV but don't like the fact that KAV engine was excluded from their 2009 products

Good job Avira, as always

 

Re: AV Comparatives August 2008! On Demand

Funny. Then why i haven't got a single false positive for more than 6 months (if not far more). Yeah, not a single one. Ha ha ha...

No proactive protection? Funny, it scored even better than some that have "Heuristics" checkbox available in options. Ha ha ha x2...
Just wait for avast! 5 with behavior part integrated. It will most probably pwn (even more) left and right just like Kaspersky does with their behavior detection.
Too bad anyone rarely tests this on-access part since it's difficult and lenghty...

No accurate details? So name Win32:Mutambe-35745 (i just made this one up) actually tells you more than Win32:Trojan-gen ? I think not. There is absolutely NO standardized rules for naming schemes so each makes its own.
If they want they can call ALL malware as Win32:Malware. It really wouldn't make much of a difference.
Ha ha ha x3...

 

Avira,AVG,Norman,Trustport detect Dr.web package as malware

 

Avast never gave me or other of its users FP......calling it crap just because it whupped your preferred AV is a classic case of sour grapes. Avast has had proactive for a while and by the looks of it, it has been greatly improving so kudos to team Avast for that.

 

Re: AV Comparatives August 2008! On Demand

Actually I disagree with your comments on Avast. I ran it for a year as my main AV and it did a great job for me without a single infection on my machine. It detected things just fine including a few things nod32 missed. In the year I ran it, I had one false positive and that was fixed incredibly fast one I report it to Avast. Overall my personal opinion of Avast is that it is for some reason underestimated by many. Not sure why because I think it is a good product and would haveno problem using it on my machine if I wasn't already running Vipre.

 

maybe your using internet rarely with avast so your not getting false positive a lot. it was just july when my friend got 5 false positive with avast. it can even detect the xp antivirus 2009 last sept 05. and after successful update it can't clean what it detects. ha ha ha. avast very poor with 40+ FALSE POSITIVE.

READ AV COMPARATIVES COMPLETE REVIEW, NOT JUST THE RATINGS. THEY STATED THAT RATINGS ARE BASED ON DETECTIONS, IF YOUR AVAST DETECTS ALL EVEN WITH THAT FP IT WILL STILL GET HIGH SCORES FOR DETECTIONS.

Just look at Virus Bulletin, avast only past just this august 2008, look at the previous 2 test last june and feb. they failed. ha ha ha... again

 

Re: AV Comparatives August 2008! On Demand

WELL AVIRA FAILED TO CLEAN WHAT IT DETECTS. THAT'S A FACT. AVIRA ONLY DETECTS AND AFTER THAT? WHAT HAPPENS? YOUR PC NEEDS REFORMAT. HA HA HA

 

Or maybe you're completely wrong. Stop making up excuses to justify your fallacious statements.

But then again, when a FREE product detects almost 50,000 more viruses than another product that you paid $60 for, I can understand why you're crying so hard...

 

Lol! I think you hit the nail on the head. BTW.. Maybe he should know I have an always on high speed connection to the Internet..

 

And since we're on the subject of FPs, let's just say that avast!, unlike some other paid-for product that costs $60 and detects less viruses, has yet to bring the networks of its corporate customers around the world to their knees by two incidents of mass FPs in as many months.

 

To all:

A number of off topic posts have been removed. Let's keep the discussion focused on the topic and leave the mindless back and forth blather behind.

Blue

 

The problem with ESET is that update contain fews viruses in detection.
some updates contain 3 viruses...
How can this antivirus know the thousands of virus that appear every day...?