Broadband Tech > Security > Security > AV-Comparatives On-demand Comparative Feb. 2010 released

AV-Comparatives On-demand Comparative Feb. 2010 released

reply to Smokey Bear
Thanks!

Still amazed the bounce back of Symantec. I know it's been about 2 years and I should honestly just live with it, but still GRATZ to that team.

reply to Smokey Bear
That why I've been using NOD since 2.7. It always get an Advance + rating. I see MSE dropped off a bit in this comparative to an Advance rating.

--
A bad picture is better than no picture at all, and I would rather have a picture with some noise and details,
than an picture with no noise and no details.

reply to Smokey Bear
Avira was NUMBER 1 for single engine programs. They did FANTASTIC and managed to lower their False Positive rate a LOT. Very impressive. Kudos to Avira especially for their lowering of FP's so greatly yet managing to still rank number 1 in detection. That is no little feat. They could, and should, continue to try and get their FP rate even lower (to "very low" instead "low").

Avast, on the other hand, had a not too good day. They rated down as number 11. Their trojan detection...ugh....and trojans are the main problem these days. Even Avast personnel admit Avast didn't do that great (thread in Avast forum).

Symantec does continue to surprise and to do really well. That is wonderful that Symantec has made a real come back.

Microsoft did poorly. GData has both Bit Defender, and Avast engines, and it was NOT the Avast engine that put them so high rather it was the Bit Defender engine.
--
When governments fear people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. Thomas Jefferson

Good to see Avira doing well!

Panda has surprisingly high detection too. But Kaspersky sure is not tops anymore. And AVG - funny they partnered with Limewire when their detection is so low - What a bad deal!

reply to Smokey Bear
I knew there was a good reason for going with Avira. I used to use Comodo AV along with Comodo Firewall, but removed the AV portion in favor of Avira last April.
--
"The trouble with computers, of course, is that they are very sophisticated idiots." - Doctor Who (from Robot)

reply to Mele20

reply to Smokey Bear
You should see all the "discussions" going on here »www.wilderssecurity.com/showthre···t=268028

Lots of opinions, and posts from the AV peeps too.

Seems Avast did just a tad better than Kaspersky for trojans and better overall. Besides it's free.

reply to tempnexus

reply to Mele20

plz do not mislead forum readers by assuming things that fit your mind. if you look at the august test report, avira had only 1 FP due packer detection back then. furthermore, packer detection is disabled by default. they decided so also because some users thought they score high just because of packer detection, which is not the case.

Thank you for the clarification IBK .

My comment on it being flawed, was not an attack on your testing at all, it was at the vendors wanting modified results apart from what they have as a default for the average user.
I think they need to either modify the installers for the average user so it is up to their testing requests, or allow it to be told as it is.

Avira, Kaspersky, Symantec and TrustPort seemed to fall into this category. I have not used the other 3, however Kaspersky does not set these rules to 'high' when installing, the user has to manually set this rule. Maybe you can clarify this for the other 3, so we can understand the testing results better.

Forgive me if t sounded like an attack on the methods of your testing, this wasn't my intention.
--
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing - Edmund Burke

Note: Excuse my vocab, my fingers aren't as sharp as my head some days and it shows.

np
yeah, its also my wish, as expressed inside the report.

If for instance, Kaspersky wanted the testing set on high simply to test the false detections ratio, as I believe they do, it should be mentioned and allowed to be passed on to the readers, so that they can make an informed decision, that I'd have no issues with.

Guess we don't always get what we want.

Anyway, enough out of me.
--
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing - Edmund Burke

Note: Excuse my vocab, my fingers aren't as sharp as my head some days and it shows.

Avira wanted to be tested on "High" heuristics yet they repeatedly tell users to leave detection at default which is at "Medium". Avira also sets scanning at a restricted list of files. The user has to go in and check "all files". Archives are not scanned by default either (for Guard).

Avira defaults are set for users with weak CPU's.

The first thing I do is "fix" Avira's poor default settings allthough I do leave heuristics on "Medium" because even on Medium in the past I have gotten too many FP's. (But then I can't think of an AV where I haven't had to fix the poor default settings).
--
When governments fear people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. Thomas Jefferson

reply to Smokey Bear
I find this comment in the report interesting:

quote:

---

Percentages refer to the used test-set only. Even if it is just a subset of malware, due to its size, it is important to look at the number of missed malware. For example, 0.3% means 3700 missed malware samples from the used test.

---

Yes, it is scary. Avast, though, says that after examining the missed ones that they don't think they have anything to worry about. That is a bit vague but I guess they feel the missed ones are "minor" or seldom encountered by the average user...I don't really know. As for Kaspersky, it's rather shocking. But excessive pride and arrogance go before a fall and fall Kaspersky did after our famous thread here several years ago. As for MSE, well I think users should stay with Avira free or Avast free.
--
When governments fear people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. Thomas Jefferson