http://www.av-comparatives.org/comparativesreviews/detection-test/238-file-detection-test-october-2012
- Status
DiabloBlack
New Member
- Nov 5, 2011
- 193
They didn't want to take part in the on demand tests and therefore couldn't take part in any avc tests, but this being the on demand test even if they were still allowed to take part in avc they wouldn't be in this test regardless
It should be mentioned that the malware samples were at least 7 days old.
No wonder most products score 99%.
No wonder most products score 99%.
- Jan 24, 2011
- 9,378
This is why is sadder to see, a score like 80% from Webroot SecureAnywhere....And what's even more important than this detection rate, is the fact that Webroot got a 'crazy many FP's' rating in the False Positive test..ctrlaltdelete said:
Jack said:
This kind of static test is getting old. Can be a good marketing tool for the developer if they scored among the top. It didn't take the account of the overall protection that each products has to offer.
Now we live in a 3D world no more 2D. People who takes this kind of test as their holy grail should think twice and look from another angle or view point.
In my opinion the dynamic and performance test is more worthwhile to consider but AV-Comparatives put a ransom to it. So why waste big money for this kind of test if the product looks bad, on contrary it's a very good security program.
I find the very high false positives rather strange, it's very low on my side probably it's because of the way how WSA classified new and unpopular applications which isn't up in their cloud database.
For the info there are many changes with the recent version of WSA in comparison to the one that was tested here.
Agreed, Webroot SecureAnywhere AV would do better in dynamic tests for sure. I did test it for a short while, and it's not really an on-demand scan app. It was the same with Prevx 3, didn't detect all the samples during a scan, the PX5 code of the particular sample was not in their database yet. As soon as i executed an undetected sample, it was blocked and the PX5 code was sent to the database to protect other users.
Guess it's the same with WSA, it's created by the same main developer.
The File-Detection test shows that the popular MSE still misses 5% of the samples after 7 days. It's also performing really bad in the MRG Flash tests. Still a lot of people think that if it's popular, it must be good. That's sad....
Guess it's the same with WSA, it's created by the same main developer.
The File-Detection test shows that the popular MSE still misses 5% of the samples after 7 days. It's also performing really bad in the MRG Flash tests. Still a lot of people think that if it's popular, it must be good. That's sad....
I usually await their whole product dynamic test as I agree 100% with bizket. Trend is doing something rigght there. I had got a tip off from some of my friends saying that Norton 2013 is not upto the mark. Even Security for everyone reviews by 7tutorials gave Norton 2013 a stay away rating. Maybe I will get a review.
firestr001
Level 2
- Jul 22, 2012
- 317
Littlebits
Retired Staff
- May 3, 2011
- 3,893
One fact you have to consider when it comes to AV-Comparatives.
They are known to use malware samples that are not widespread in the wild.
Some of the malware samples have never once been reported as an infection on a system.
AV vendors are more concerned about the widespread infections that users are more likely to get. It is not there job to detect every single malware sample especially the ones that have never been reported as a verified infection.
To myself and most other users, we are more concerned about the malware that we are most likely to encounter.
Who really cares if your AV doesn't detect malware samples that you will never come in contact with?
Thanks.
They are known to use malware samples that are not widespread in the wild.
Some of the malware samples have never once been reported as an infection on a system.
AV vendors are more concerned about the widespread infections that users are more likely to get. It is not there job to detect every single malware sample especially the ones that have never been reported as a verified infection.
To myself and most other users, we are more concerned about the malware that we are most likely to encounter.
Who really cares if your AV doesn't detect malware samples that you will never come in contact with?
Thanks.
Many of us give comments that this types of test does not have great effect and we should not take it seriously but of course it is useful for general people who cannot commit test of malware like we do and hence don't know about the capability of detection of their av.
The second good thing these types of test do that they make pressure on av vendors so consumer can get a good return of their money as well protection.
"Paranoid" user hover around and try different av product but a "Regular" user install an av once and have faith on his product.
Lastly if someone don't do some dangerous stuff and visit safe sites he is almost safe with even a simple av+firewall along with on demand scanners as Mbam and Hmp.
Thanks
The second good thing these types of test do that they make pressure on av vendors so consumer can get a good return of their money as well protection.
"Paranoid" user hover around and try different av product but a "Regular" user install an av once and have faith on his product.
Lastly if someone don't do some dangerous stuff and visit safe sites he is almost safe with even a simple av+firewall along with on demand scanners as Mbam and Hmp.
Thanks
- Status
Similar threads
