- Dec 16, 2012
- 481
Excellent results for Kaspersky,F-Secure and Emsisoft.
F-Secure has excellent progress.
Congratulations !!!
F-Secure has excellent progress.
Congratulations !!!
I am totaly agree with you eset preformed better then kaspersky in almost every test here.Kaspersky having better fille detection rate than ESET in the Test Result, But Personally by seeing all result in Malware Hub Section i did not find kaspersky to greater than ESET.
agree again, i tested panda myself and it doesn't seems to be near the score.
I don't agree with Avira, panda and kingsoft positioning in real world test. They should get lower position than what is shown here.
As far as I know many of the people saying that some of 3rd party tests are not reliable are right. From what I know - some of third party testers don't provide necessary information for the vendors and users (Such as testing environment, AV settings used in the test etc..) so AV vendors/users/expert's can't re-produce the tests.Can this kind of test be seen as reliable? Are some of the tests of AV-Comp reliable, and some are not?
I mean many people, from here, wilders and in other forums, talk about the unreliability of 3rd party tests but when asked if what product is more superior they tend to refer to AV-Comp or AV-Test or other tests.
They say "I don't believe AV-Comp!" But if their favorite product "fails" in the AV-Comp tests, they become sad. And if the product rises, they boast about it.
This is just my general observation. That's why, personally, I'm quite confused whether to believe them or not.
And no, I won't do personal av testing. I won't risk my precious laptop.
I'd trust the test here more. real time real word. and from what I can see here the other test out there do not represent the real world\time testing.As far as I know many of the people saying that some of 3rd party tests are not reliable are right. From what I know - some of third party testers don't provide necessary information for the vendors and users (Such as testing environment, AV settings used in the test etc..) so AV vendors/users/expert's can't re-produce the tests.
I seriously hope no one is foolish enough to believe these AV testing sites.
It is no secret that the more popular AV companies are paying them.
AV Comparatives = good advertisers that is it.
There is no proof at all that any AV software will protect every single user better than other AV software in the same way, this is a big misconception.
Enjoy!!
@l1nuxfre4k OK, but a lot of Antivirus software cannot detect PUP/Toolbars, without custom settings.
Maybe they're not all malicious, they can still be considered unwanted, so even other AVs need an extra helping hand, especially for lesser experienced users. So I do recommend Unchecky for this.
That said, Microsoft does provide good protection for a baseline product, 90% is still a considerably high percentage.
you know whats fany?As detection goes why don't people use Internet Probe - Network Intrusion Detection System (NIDS) as part of a layered security?
you know whats fany?
most of the security frick's don't really need all the expensive product's coz most of them do know how to handle with infected pc's. for them the built in security is more then enough and they probably won't get infected. even in a small chance that they will they will probably recover from it fast. the people that really need the security are people who don't know anything about viruses or recovery options
I fully agree with what you said.I seriously hope no one is foolish enough to believe these AV testing sites.
It is no secret that the more popular AV companies are paying them.
AV Comparatives = good advertisers that is it.
There is no proof at all that any AV software will protect every single user better than other AV software in the same way, this is a big misconception.
Enjoy!!