MDRockstar

New Member
http://www.av-test.org/en/tests/home-user/marapr-2012/

Good result for AVG free.
As always Norton , Kaspersky and Bitdefender are at the top.
Eset .... :huh:
 

McLovin

Level 73
Verified
Trusted
Malware Hunter
Surprised from the result that AVG got, they must be doing something right. I see that Trend Micro still needs improvements.
 

malwarekiller

New Member
McLovin said:
Surprised from the result that AVG got, they must be doing something right. I see that Trend Micro still needs improvements.
Actually if u look down the history if AV-TEST result They have always been giving good result to AVG :D
 

MrXidus

Super Moderator (Leave of absence)
malwarekiller said:
McLovin said:
Surprised from the result that AVG got, they must be doing something right. I see that Trend Micro still needs improvements.
Actually if u look down the history if AV-TEST result They have always been giving good result to AVG :D
Well they must pay good money for good results. :rolleyes:
 

MrXidus

Super Moderator (Leave of absence)
malwarekiller said:
MrXidus said:
Well they must pay good money for good results. :rolleyes:
Yeah may be a possibility..I find AV-comparatives better than AV-Test really:shy:
I find personal testing better than any independent / AV testing organization.
 

malwarekiller

New Member
MrXidus said:
I find personal testing better than any independent / AV testing organization.
+3 on that :blush:

really,use what u prefer the best and the one that makes a top notch score in your testing :D
 

McLovin

Level 73
Verified
Trusted
Malware Hunter
malwarekiller said:
Actually if u look down the history if AV-TEST result They have always been giving good result to AVG :D
Well what ever they do must work because every time I go to test AVG it doesn't do that well. :s
 

malwarekiller

New Member
i hardly even doubt on these removal tests carried out by these testing organizations...are they using avast boot time scan feature which is highly effective in finding and removing new malware?? as the default scans arent sufficient with their settings

AVG is yet in question here: http://www.pcworld.com/article/170602/avg_85_free_antivirus_software.html


Well, at least one independent testing organization thinks otherwise:
http://www.westcoastlabs.com/realTimeTesting/article/?articleID=1

BTW 3 weeks ago, they started using Avast 7 (and as you can see, there's some measurable upside).

A quote from one of the avast guy called kubec

The testing is getting more and more problematic. And on each AV conference there are multiple papers about how to do proper testing (not that I think that all of them make sense 8))

I have objections against all AV-Comparatives tests performed, also the Av-Test, but those are less 'documented', so it's hard to tell where the deficiencies lie.

The usual points about static testing are:
a) the tests are carried long after the real infection took place, so it's kind of useless from today's point of view
b) the tests are carried without any context state information. Such information - if there is file named "document.doc .exe" in email, this is enough to ban the execution
c) the tests are carried only with the signature engines - they don't test the other generic protection engines the products may have
d) the tests don't know anything about the relationship of the samples. If you detect the dropper, you don't have to detect the dropped binary.
e) the tests are too binary-centric and have only small amount of script/pdf/flash malware, althought these are one of the main vectors of getting thru to your computer.
f) there is little of no info on how the testbeds are created. All these 99.1% and such scores are complete nonsense from my point of view. The overlap of the product's detections is not as great as clementi/marx tests suggest.

This is not an excuse, that's an explanation what your really should read from the static tests. Yep, it's nice to be on the first places, but the world does not end if you're not there.
Regarding the pro-active test, this is the most flawed test of them all. It does _NOT_ test the ability of the product to protect you from the unknown malware. It tests the ability of the signature engines to detect the samples Av-Comparatives got in the test's timeframe. For example, what if the engine authors already had the samples and wrote the detections and Av-Comparatives added them later? We're back again in the 'testedbed construction' problem.
 

MDRockstar

New Member
C'mon guys! The result are what they are. Do you seriously think that eset got bad result just because they pay less? Think about it for a second. We can't trust antivirus testing made on youtube because a lot of files found in cleanmx, malware domain are not malware after sending them to lab. For example when i send a virus pack to avg lab there is always a lot of files that is clean. Avg did better than avast this time and people thinks that av-test is garbage! C'mon!
 
AVG: 1,198,020
Avast: 1,119,814
I think people saw these results or something because AVG made it to the top of the list on Cnet. Almost 80k people downloaded AVG over Avast.
 

malbky

New Member
I only trust and refer to AV comparatives real world suite testing. It also clearly shows how much were user dependent action and how much was handled automatically.
 

jamescv7

Level 61
Verified
Trusted
Well really no surprise like Bitdefender, F-secure, Gdata and others since on AV-Test they have different way on testing than other testing organization too thus even products known to be better were different too.

Likely a grain of salt for it.
 
D

Deleted member 178

jamescv7 said:
since on AV-Test they have different way on testing than other testing organization too thus even products known to be better were different too.
Likely a grain of salt for it.
As always.
 

lemark

From ESET
Verified
Developer
MDRockstar said:
http://www.av-test.org/en/tests/home-user/marapr-2012/

Good result for AVG free.
As always Norton , Kaspersky and Bitdefender are at the top.
Eset .... :huh:
Hi there, actually i work in eset and we are taking really seriously these test. We are working hard and the tests have helped us discover real issues with cleaning, some of them we've already fixed, but some of them will take more time to fix. Our product has previously not failed to be certificated by AV Test and the true is, that we designs products for our customers and real world conditions, not to perform well in tests. We are also offering many free cleaning tools, which you can find in ESET Knowledge base. Please, we don't want to hide, so if you have any comments or questions, we will appreciate it :)
 
D

Deleted member 178

lemark said:
the true is, that we designs products for our customers and real world conditions, not to perform well in tests.
Exactly, i agree with this. Tests are just a one-moment piece of information depending of the malware, if lucky they will test the AV with a malware that fall under its signature/heuristic, if not, the AV will be "bypassed" until the signature comes.