Broadband Tech > Security > Security > File-Detection Test September 2012 -released

File-Detection Test September 2012 -released

bummer..its a pdf and right now I am not trusting adobe...
hope your favorities won last month. How about a synopsis ?

reply to Name Game
I kicked Adobe to the curb a couple of years ago. (I never understood why updating the freakin' pdf reader should require a system reboot!) So far, Foxit Reader has been quite suitable as a replacement.

reply to Blackbird

reply to claudiubotez
Still upset with MSE........had much higher hopes for it than this.

Avira still looks awesome however, as well as my avast!

reply to claudiubotez
Things.

1st) AVComp ran false pos tests for Qihoo and Tencent; but their products are absent from the primary report. ???

2nd) I'd like to have seen how Emsisoft (a-squared) rated but it was not to be.

3rd) Scans for commercial keyloggers - and - FP results for admin tools would take these results into the Real-World-Usefulness category.

4th) I have to take these comparison tests with a big grain of salt - they just never align w/ my experience.

Case in point is a submission I made yesterday.
Jotti
VirusTotal
VirScan (zipped sample)

This isn't an obscure bug. It's a Black Hole Java Exploit, that's been well documented since early July.
Yet about half of the top performers don't detect it (Avira detected it 1st BTW).

Over time, my real-life submissions should trend similar to the comparison reports; but they don't.
My 0day submissions aren't even close (except for G-Data, they rock).

Summary: My mileage is very vary.
--
Campaign contributions influence laws through a process called bribery.

reply to Name Game

reply to claudiubotez
I see Symantec is not participating.
Webroot had a CRAZY number of false positives...(210fp) and G-DATA with it's highly impressive 99.9% detection rate had 23fp. Microsoft had 0fp.
That means little to myself as this is one test result on one specific area of an A/V. This test may excel in one aspect of the A/V... but it very well could fail miserably in another test which would be as equally important.

reply to Name Game

reply to Dustyn
Yes, I've been a happy Windows user of Evince for some time now. But I have to use an older version. The current one causes a lockup of itself and then freezes the computer resulting in a forced shut down of the computer. It doesn't like my Samsung Smart TV's 300+ page manual for some weird reason. But the old version likes it just fine.
--
When governments fear people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. Thomas Jefferson

reply to Dustyn
Symantec threw a hissy fit the test before this one, I believe it was, and you can read about it at AVComparatives. They left in a huff. We had a thread about it here also.

I am amazed at how well Trend Micro did! They have certainly improved a lot. GData...I was going to trial it on a new computer but not with all those FP's. It gets all of Bit Defender's FP's and Avast FP's so no wonder the number is high. I'm gonna ask Dell if they will put Trend Micro on my new computer instead of McAfee. They might since I am buying through Small Business Division (but I am doing it using MPP which makes the configurator use the settings for Home Division which installs McAfee while Small Business sans MPP installs Trend Micro).

I see Avast did great also and that is good news.
--
When governments fear people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. Thomas Jefferson

reply to Dustyn
Wish that one could do XDP format. Had to print one of those the other day to get absentee ballot from S.C. Downloaded an older version of Acrobum Reader..then promptly uninstalled it after the deed was done.

reply to Noah Vail
"AVComp ran false pos tests for Qihoo and Tencent; but their products are absent from the primary report. ???"

Qihoo and Tencent products are available in Chinese only. Therefore, you can find them in the Chinese report (in which some products which do not exist in China are absent).
What you call primary report is the international report which contains products available in English language.

reply to Mele20

Yeah, but why wouldn't they wish to be tested in file detection other than that they do horrible on that test? File detection is probably the most important function of an AV. I got the impression Symantec is pulling a Webroot. i wouldn't dream of using either AV since neither can pass muster on file detection. I would link to my post where I explain more but our "friendly moderators" deleted the thread it is in today. Has discussion of file detection become a hot potato here?

T'would be nice if the site would save a copy of a post in a thread that is being deleted and forward that when notifying the poster in the thread of the action as I don't feel like trying to recreate it.
--
When governments fear people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. Thomas Jefferson

Yeah...so? Never use an AV that fails file detection scanning like Norton or Webroot. ALL AV should do outstanding when doing on demand scanning. I don't care about weird crap that some claim is "better". That is simply not true. ALL AV should do outstanding on AV Comparatives File Detection test. It is a basic and FUNDAMENTAL test. If an AV can't do well on it....well then the user should run as fast as they can in the opposite direction and install an AV that can. I don't use anything in the cloud. If Avira had never pulled the crap with sleazeware and scareware that they did, I would still be leaving them when they kill versions 8 and 9 later this year. Version 13 relies a lot on the cloud...mostly for the paid versions currently but it will come to the free version and I want nothing in the cloud...certainly not my AV.

Further, an AV that refuses to detect malware because it wasn't downloaded from a website is one that should be laughed into the ground immediately.
--
When governments fear people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. Thomas Jefferson

uuuhm, probably my explanation was too loong or complicated. An AV that fails to identify a malware by scanning may still be able to perfectly protect your system from infection(s). You cannot judge a security tool only by its scanning capability.

Even more simply: Detection is not equal to protection. A software may fail to protect a system from a malware even if capable of detecting it. If one would need to priorities on which tool to choose then it should look for a security tool able to protect the system from infection(s). It should not be too difficult to grasp the essence of what I am trying to say