Test Results vs Reputation?

[AkumaSama]

Do we as PC users, choose our security thro actual test results ( detection etc) or simply the reputation
of a security software ?

 

[Nico@FMA]

Do we as PC users, choose our security thro actual test results ( detection etc) or simply the reputation
of a security software ?

Well its obvious that reputation is a large part of the decision making since not every PC user reads testing reports and a even bigger group does not even know they exist.
So usually reputation or advise from a friend is the "go by" method in selecting a security solution.
That is also a reason why the security industry agreed a baseline level of security that guarantees that whatever package you take they all at least meet the minimal protection level which is sufficient for the bulk of the internet users.

 

[aragornnnn]

Actual test's and reputation are both important for me.

I opted for Kaspersky because they have a rock solid reputation aswell as very good results

in any tests (Malware Hub, ...)

 

[hjlbx]

I always actually test drive the security soft - in terms of compatibility, reliability, usability and protection results using malware samples.

Very few users will go through the trouble - even if they know how to do it.

Sorry... we're all stocked-up on Plug-n-Play here...

 

[Nico@FMA]

I always actually test drive the security soft - in terms of compatibility, reliability, usability and protection results using malware samples.

Very few users will go through the trouble - even if they know how to do it.

Sorry... we're all stocked-up on Plug-n-Play here...

Integration just to finish your criteria.
Because lets assume that you and me both use uhhmmm Sophos (just as example) then Sophos might do wonders for you but for me its utter garbage.
What is the reason of this? Well usually its not the security package that has problems, since AV companies (Specially the top 5) put really good care into "integration" and avoiding conflicts.
Windows can run any antivirus developed for windows, but not every antivirus can run on Windows and that has everything to do with the other programs, tweaks and custom/user settings.

Also the users computer habits play a very big role in selecting your security setup, are you a gamer? are you just a websurfer? or are you bla bla user and so on? Not very important you might think right? Well the opposite is true your user habit profile certainly comes into play when making a educated choice about which brand and type to go with.

 

[CMLew]

I always run trial before deciding to commit myself on the security software. test results means nothing to me. reputation is overrated for me.

 

[ZeroDay]

Actual test's and reputation are both important for me.

I opted for Kaspersky because they have a rock solid reputation aswell as very good results

in any tests (Malware Hub, ...)

I like Kaspersky too. However, doesn't the current Kaspersky firewall bypass concern you?

 

[Nico@FMA]

I like Kaspersky too. However, doesn't the current Kaspersky firewall bypass concern you?

Why would it concern someone? Most of these bypasses need a happy click finger to do their dirty work.
And most automated bypasses still rely on user intervention or action.
The odds that the current Kaspersky bypass is going to affect you is virtually ZERO unless you are looking for it.

 

[ZeroDay]

Why would it concern someone? Most of these bypasses need a happy click finger to do their dirty work.
And most automated bypasses still rely on user intervention or action.
The odds that the current Kaspersky bypass is going to affect you is virtually ZERO unless you are looking for it.

A known bypass of any sort in security software I was using would concern me and I'm not a happy clicker by any means.

 

[Ana_Filiz]

I`d rather say usability, this meaning very good detection and optimal behavior versus the end user device.

 

[RoboMan]

Both go together, i think. I make my own tests to determine if a software is suitable for me, but i don't test those software whose reputation is not worth it. E.G: Comodo's products

As well, if a software has a really good reputation but internet tests give awful results, i use to stay away from it, unless tests are strange and deserve to be tried on my own. But most of the time, those with awful results don't have a good reputation.

 

[Cohen]

It's generally a mixture of both.
Reputation comes with fairly good test results; however, good test results may not accurately reflect how the program behaves under different circumstances. If an AV company has a lot of money, they can persuade AV testing companies to do the test so the results are in their favour which can give more reputation that wasn't earned legitimately.

Other factors also play into it, such as ease-of-use, how much tinkering it needs to get working correctly, etc.

 

[Logethica]

Reputation Vs Test Results?

Personally I do not think Reputation is Important,unless it is a very bad reputation littered with examples of poor ethics.
A "Good / Solid" reputation may take over a decade to build yet could be destroyed in 24 hours through just 1 poor decision.
I think that the "evolution of" and "competition between" Security Software would be poorer if one was to not try newer/or alternative solutions...
How could software like VoodooShield and Crystal Security build a reputation if people were to only select software that already had a reputation built?

For this reason,I would have to select "Test Results" over "Reputation",but that does depend on the tests themselves..
Comparing the signature banks of AV1 Vs AV2 is all well and good,but I would prefer to know how the HIPS/Behaviour/Heuristics/Ai components would stand up to the threats...and I would like to see more people modify existing samples or create their own for tests,as I do not have the required skill or knowledge to do this myself.
When selecting Security software I "hope for the best" but "expect the worst"...and I will always favour the "paranoid" multiple lines of defence approach than the "All my eggs in one basket" approach..

 

[McLovin]

For me it's a combination of both. Every system is different and will handle the malware and the antivirus differently. I like to do tests on that Antivirus for a couple of weeks and if I'm liking it I'll stick with it. I also read reviews on products and where areas people say that it's not performing well I test them out to see if there is actually a problem.

 

[novocaine]

test result is dynamic, reputation comes from the test results, reputation is summary

 

[conceptualclarity]

Both matter to me. Norton has good test results, but its reputation with a whole lot of users rules it out for me. Also, on this website, Bitdefender's reputation is well below its test results, and I give a good bit of credence to that.

 

[jamescv7]

Typical users prefer reputation first, because people are already satisfied if a company have bigger achievements. .

Any known brand name of security product which already circulated through sales on stores is already a key to increase market shares.

------

However test results are goes on experience up to advance users to choose a product; many people will not ever understand unless explain thoroughly by the one who take in chaege.

 

[Captain Awesome]

I prefer test results over reputation.