AV-Comparatives File Detection Test March 2014

[nastavnikhe]

Content source

http://www.av-comparatives.org/file-detection-test-march-2014/

Excellent results for Kaspersky,F-Secure and Emsisoft.
F-Secure has excellent progress.
Congratulations !!!

 

[MrExplorer]

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.

 

[viktik]

• Advance Plus to so many products.

​

• False Alarm Test

​

• Malware detection test

​

• Real world protection test

​

I don't agree with Avira, panda and kingsoft positioning in real world test. They should get lower position than what is shown here.

 

[l1nuxfre4k]

lol, Microsoft's built in is laughable i think people who stick to the built in should rethink it and maybe install something extra hehe.

 

[Ink]

@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.

 

[NSG001]

avast! seems to have suddenly gone real toilet these past few months.

 

[XhenEd]

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.

 

[xxtoss23]

 

[nissimezra]

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.

I am totaly agree with you eset preformed better then kaspersky in almost every test here.

 

[nissimezra]

​

​

I don't agree with Avira, panda and kingsoft positioning in real world test. They should get lower position than what is shown here.

agree again, i tested panda myself and it doesn't seems to be near the score.
just note that avira and avg is not the free ones

 

[MalwareDetective]

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.

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.

 

[nissimezra]

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'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.

 

[SherKaan]

Requiescat em pace - avast!

 

[Littlebits]

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!!

 

[SherKaan]

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!!

I respect your opinion, but do you have any proof that AV-C is being paid off?

And if it's indeed all paid (as per your say), then what's the use of all this discussion here? What purpose does this topic serve then?

 

[(BlackBox) Hacker]

You need a mix between 100% safe download sites including UAC Mode also Antivirus and Router Layer of Security! Don't forget the Two Way Firewall?

Whitelist Sites:

http://www.download3k.com/Antivirus-Report-Windows-Firewall-Console.html

You will notice the scan results tab on page!

@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.

As detection goes why don't people use Internet Probe - Network Intrusion Detection System (NIDS) as part of a layered security?

 

[nissimezra]

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

 

[Exterminator]

As always take these with a grain of $alt.The best test is you yourself on your machine under your computing habits.As far as Microsoft's built in security,it is much improved in Windows 8 and I personally think much better than this AV comparative report.Maybe Microsoft forgot to grea$e them

 

[(BlackBox) Hacker]

There are simple and cheaper forms such as Nmap or Zenmap!

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

 

[MalwareDetective]

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!!

I fully agree with what you said.
I personally don't have a proof that companies pays them but I do know that many vendors don't get enough information about the tests and that many times they can't re-produce the tests by their own.
As you said "There is no proof at all that any AV software will protect every single user better than other AV software in the same way" - I agree again. I don't think they can proof that one AV is better than another. I don't know exactly on which system they are using and what settings of windows/AV they are testing on. Protection is changed on every computer and with every user. Protection is getting changed by what a user clicks/change in windows/AV settings.