- Apr 20, 2011
- 2,079
AV-Test Product Review and Certification Report - 2011/Q1
read and result
AVG has better protection for free AV's
read and result
AVG has better protection for free AV's
AV-Test Product Review and Certification Report - 2011/Q1
- Thread starter win7holic
- Start date
- Apr 20, 2011
- 2,079
RE: AV-Test Product Review and Certification Report - 2010/Q4
opps.. sorry.. i'm wrong to type
sorry bogdan ^^
but, between free and paid.. is same virus database.. just little difference with PAID.. i think.. AVG better for now..
bogdan said:
opps.. sorry.. i'm wrong to type
sorry bogdan ^^
but, between free and paid.. is same virus database.. just little difference with PAID.. i think.. AVG better for now..
Valentin N
Level 2
- Feb 25, 2011
- 1,314
RE: AV-Test Product Review and Certification Report - 2010/Q4
Thanks Win
I wonder why they give FP so hight value? The worst thing is that you own install it. FP is way better than an infection. Comodo is getting closer and closer to get an AV-Test certificate. Once CCE is integrated it will sure perform better (lets hope ^^)
Regards,
Valentin N
Thanks Win
I wonder why they give FP so hight value? The worst thing is that you own install it. FP is way better than an infection. Comodo is getting closer and closer to get an AV-Test certificate. Once CCE is integrated it will sure perform better (lets hope
^^)Regards,
Valentin N
- Apr 20, 2011
- 2,079
RE: AV-Test Product Review and Certification Report - 2010/Q4
protection with 5 and repair with 4
good for AVG.. i'm lastest use AVG use AVG 2011 then i'm change to NIS 2011
i need test AVG for my self
Valentin N said:Thanks Win
I wonder why they give FP so hight value? The worst thing is that you own install it. FP is way better than an infection. Comodo is getting closer and closer to get an AV-Test certificate. Once CCE is integrated it will sure perform better (lets hope
Regards,
Valentin N
protection with 5 and repair with 4
good for AVG.. i'm lastest use AVG use AVG 2011 then i'm change to NIS 2011
i need test AVG for my self
bogdan
Level 1
- Jan 7, 2011
- 1,362
RE: AV-Test Product Review and Certification Report - 2010/Q4
Yes, but AVG Internet Security was used and the test also included dynamic detection (malware was executed). It is not an on-demand scan test that only uses signatures. Since their suite has extra features compared to their antivirus (firewall, anti-spam etc.) it is possible that only the Internet Suite can stop some executed samples from infecting the system.
Yes, but AVG Internet Security was used and the test also included dynamic detection (malware was executed). It is not an on-demand scan test that only uses signatures. Since their suite has extra features compared to their antivirus (firewall, anti-spam etc.) it is possible that only the Internet Suite can stop some executed samples from infecting the system.
Valentin N
Level 2
- Feb 25, 2011
- 1,314
RE: AV-Test Product Review and Certification Report - 2010/Q4
CIS specilized in preventing malware to infect you and the AV component is not the best.
CIS specilized in preventing malware to infect you and the AV component is not the best.
bogdan
Level 1
- Jan 7, 2011
- 1,362
RE: AV-Test Product Review and Certification Report - 2010/Q4
Yes, comparing AVG Internet Suite and COMODO Internet Suite makes more sense. The lower detection score for COMODO has allot to do with the methodology used.
1. First they mainly test the signatures against 0-day malware (107 samples). In march 2011 for example AVG IS detected 98% while COMODO detected only 89%.
2. Next they run a different set of samples (only 29 samples). AVG prevented 93% of the samples to infect the system while CIS stopped all of them. So if you actually try to run the malware, CIS can protect protect you better (as we all know CIS does require some user interaction, however)
3. They test the signatures again, but this time they use a larger sample set (522634 samples). In March AVG - 98% while CIS 97%.
4. Again a signature test, but this time against common, wide-spread malware (24106 samples). In March both products detected all samples.
So they perform 3 signature tests and 1 dynamic test. The final detection score is a combination of these tests. One could argue that if they actually took the time to run all samples from tests 1,3 and 4, CIS might get a better end result.
Yes, comparing AVG Internet Suite and COMODO Internet Suite makes more sense. The lower detection score for COMODO has allot to do with the methodology used.
1. First they mainly test the signatures against 0-day malware (107 samples). In march 2011 for example AVG IS detected 98% while COMODO detected only 89%.
2. Next they run a different set of samples (only 29 samples). AVG prevented 93% of the samples to infect the system while CIS stopped all of them. So if you actually try to run the malware, CIS can protect protect you better (as we all know CIS does require some user interaction, however)
3. They test the signatures again, but this time they use a larger sample set (522634 samples). In March AVG - 98% while CIS 97%.
4. Again a signature test, but this time against common, wide-spread malware (24106 samples). In March both products detected all samples.
So they perform 3 signature tests and 1 dynamic test. The final detection score is a combination of these tests. One could argue that if they actually took the time to run all samples from tests 1,3 and 4, CIS might get a better end result.
Valentin N
Level 2
- Feb 25, 2011
- 1,314
RE: AV-Test Product Review and Certification Report - 2010/Q4
CAV is good but Avast might be better AV depending how you customize Avast.
Avast is more compalitible than AVG and keep in mind that no AV + other Firewall are fully compatible with each other; only firewall/AV from the same company are fully/best compatible with the other components.
I know that Avast is very compatible and popular combo with Comodo firewall but you need to unmark the blockbehavior and the sandbox (make sure to chose customize or what's called) in case you want to use d+ and sandbox. I also suggest you add cmdagent.exe in exclusions of Avast's AV.
Same thing if you chose AVG, put cmdagent.exe in exlcusion, disable Identiy Protection (AVG's HIDS component very similare to HIPS).
Regards,
Valentin N
win7holic said:Valentin N said:
yep comodo AV not better
but, be honest comodo FW is rock
^^
and it can combine with AVG free or avast latest version
CAV is good but Avast might be better AV depending how you customize Avast.
Avast is more compalitible than AVG and keep in mind that no AV + other Firewall are fully compatible with each other; only firewall/AV from the same company are fully/best compatible with the other components.
I know that Avast is very compatible and popular combo with Comodo firewall but you need to unmark the blockbehavior and the sandbox (make sure to chose customize or what's called) in case you want to use d+ and sandbox. I also suggest you add cmdagent.exe in exclusions of Avast's AV.
Same thing if you chose AVG, put cmdagent.exe in exlcusion, disable Identiy Protection (AVG's HIDS component very similare to HIPS).
Regards,
Valentin N
- Apr 20, 2011
- 2,079
RE: AV-Test Product Review and Certification Report - 2010/Q4
thx for share about setting to us and others
thats good ^^
Valentin N said:win7holic said:Valentin N said:
yep comodo AV not better
but, be honest comodo FW is rock
^^
and it can combine with AVG free or avast latest version
CAV is good but Avast might be better AV depending how you customize Avast.
Avast is more compalitible than AVG and keep in mind that no AV + other Firewall is fully compatible with each other; only firewall/AV from the same company is fully/best compatible with the other components.
I know that Avast is very compatible and popular combo with Comodo firewall but you need to unmark the blockbehavior and the sandbox (make sure to chose customize or what's called) in case you want to use d+ and sandbox. I also suggest you add cmdagent.exe in exclusions of Avast's AV.
Same thing if you chose AVG, put cmdagent.exe in exlcusion, disable Identiy Protection (AVG's HIDS component very similare to HIPS).
Regards,
Valentin N
thx for share about setting to us and others
thats good ^^
- Jan 24, 2011
- 9,379
RE: AV-Test Product Review and Certification Report - 2010/Q4
NIS manage to get 100% Protection rate in all 3 months against 0 day threats ..so even thought they used like 100 malware samples ...i must say "Kudos" to that
http://www.av-test.org/reports/2011q1/avtest_report_symantec_110929.pdf
And just seen this : CIS Failed...this is so LOL......) ... Melih will not like this.......
http://www.av-test.org/reports/2011q1/avtest_report_comodo_110987.pdf
NIS manage to get 100% Protection rate in all 3 months against 0 day threats ..so even thought they used like 100 malware samples ...i must say "Kudos" to that
http://www.av-test.org/reports/2011q1/avtest_report_symantec_110929.pdf
And just seen this : CIS Failed...this is so LOL......
) ... Melih will not like this.......http://www.av-test.org/reports/2011q1/avtest_report_comodo_110987.pdf
Valentin N
Level 2
- Feb 25, 2011
- 1,314
A product only needs 11 points now. That is why Microsoft and avast! have been certified in Q1 2011.
Similar threads
