AV-Comparatives On-Demand Comparative August 2011

[anuraag]

http://www.av-compar.../detection-test

[AlienForce1]

http://www.av-comparatives.org/en/comparativesreviews/detection-test

This is what I find the most interesting - and it`s really bad news for Norton`s fans :P

A few remarks :

- McAfee is the second time with zero false alarms

- Trend Micro tends to become again a very good security product ( remember : Whole Product Dynamic Tests - Protection Gradient , aug.2011)

- Panda one false alarm ( in recent years have had a lot of false alarms ...)

[morteza]

I live in real world and Symantec is first in real world test so i choose Symantec. ^_^

[johndoe]

McAfee's detection is very consistent - about the same for malware as it is for false positives :lol:

oh and going by the report the pc tools "security solution" received, pc tools is actually selling something ($39.99) so ineffective an advanced user wouldn't even use if given for free :lol:

anybody wanna buy the Eiffel Tower? I'm selling it for a real bargain today :D

[just1acc]

McAfee's detection is very consistent - about the same for malware as it is for false positives :lol:

+100 :D :s :lol: :rolleyes:

[hakah]

Thanks for the information!

[AlienForce1]

McAfee's detection is very consistent - about the same for malware as it is for false positives :lol:

Why do you say that ? It`s results are better than acclaimed Norton , MSE and AVG ...

It`s interesting to read in PcMag how Neil R. is trying to sweeten bad result obtained by Norton and minimize McAfee`s (and Kaspersky) - Why is it ? What do you think ? :P

morteza Today, 01:05 PM

Why symantec in real world test is first but in other test is not first? maybe other anti viruses live in unreal world or AV-C live in unreal world!!!

I think i live in real world so i use Symantec . what do you think? :-)

I would like to see those real world tests were Norton is the best ... :huh:

R0H1T Today, 01:32 PM

Don't know about you but Norton is also pretty infamous about those generic detections/false positives as well, whilst I live realtime in this world I don't like my AV to block virtually anything/everything that I download of my own free will & I don't like setting exceptions for every other stuff that I've got on my PC ;)

In real world Norton results are worse !

And I must agree with ROH1T - Norton became a very dificult AV-program to deal with , latest vers. deletes and blocks a lot of files sometimes even without quarantine !

[johndoe]

in the real world, mcafee is totally ineffective. i don't know if or whether this might change in any way after its acquisition by intel but up to now, any pc protected by mcafee is like a man running around with a sign taped to his back saying "kick me" if you get my point ;)

[AlienForce1]

in the real world, mcafee is totally ineffective. i don't know if or whether this might change in any way after its acquisition by intel but up to now, any pc protected by mcafee is like a man running around with a sign taped to his back saying "kick me" if you get my point ;)

Just to make things more clear - I am not a McAfee fan (I like and use Kaspersky , ESET , VIPRE and sometimes AviraFree - all depends on the computer and who will use it) .

But if I would have to choose between McAfee and AVG or PcTools -> I would choose some of the above list ... :lol:

(on dinamic tests , which are closer to the way they are used by end users , McAfee doesn`t stay well and neither AVG or PcTools are not doing too well...)

[AlienForce1]

I think we should leave polemics (ultimately stupid).

Perhaps if they do these tests in other conditions (other malware set) results may differ ...

[avmad]

McAfee Advanced Plus :o :o That's the only surprise for me. Everything else looks about right. Don't forget some ask to be set at high heuristics instead of default. Probably makes a big difference.

[morteza]

@AlienForce1

You can see AV-C real world test.You can see this analyse about AV-C tests: http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2393736,00.asp#fbid=TgQLyqluBPI

-_-

[Tweety.Abd]

McAfee's detection is very consistent - about the same for malware as it is for false positives :lol:

Why do you say that ? It`s results are better than acclaimed Norton , MSE and AVG ...

It`s interesting to read in PcMag how Neil R. is trying to sweeten bad result obtained by Norton and minimize McAfee`s (and Kaspersky) - Why is it ? What do you think ? :P

morteza Today, 01:05 PM

Why symantec in real world test is first but in other test is not first? maybe other anti viruses live in unreal world or AV-C live in unreal world!!!

I think i live in real world so i use Symantec . what do you think? :-)

I would like to see those real world tests were Norton is the best ... :huh:

R0H1T Today, 01:32 PM

Don't know about you but Norton is also pretty infamous about those generic detections/false positives as well, whilst I live realtime in this world I don't like my AV to block virtually anything/everything that I download of my own free will & I don't like setting exceptions for every other stuff that I've got on my PC ;)

In real world Norton results are worse !

And I must agree with ROH1T - Norton became a very dificult AV-program to deal with , latest vers. deletes and blocks a lot of files sometimes even without quarantine !

Norton is meant for people who wish for 'set & forget' protection, not for advanced users. And besides, I have never come across an event where Norton deletes a file without moving it in the quarantine, at least not in the 2012 version.

[AlienForce1]

Norton is meant for people who wish for 'set & forget' protection, not for advanced users. And besides, I have never come across an event where Norton deletes a file without moving it in the quarantine, at least not in the 2012 version.

This is the main motive that determined me to give up Norton2012 (I installed on my laptop , with 180day trick) and to not upgrade to vers.2012 on another comp. were now I have NAV.vers.2011

[bzh 29]

AV-TEST http://www.av-test.org/en/tests/test-reports/julaug-2011/ :D

[Andyxl.Yu]

quite interesting..there is no comodo..why?

[AlienForce1]

quite interesting..there is no comodo..why?

Comodo wasn't tested yet by AV-Comparatives ... their CEO said that they intend to participate (in near future) to AV-Comp.tests .

[Tweety.Abd]

Norton is meant for people who wish for 'set & forget' protection, not for advanced users. And besides, I have never come across an event where Norton deletes a file without moving it in the quarantine, at least not in the 2012 version.

This is the main motive that determined me to give up Norton2012 (I installed on my laptop , with 180day trick) and to not upgrade to vers.2012 on another comp. were now I have NAV.vers.2011

Well that's the main reason I use Norton because it is automatic, not because I'm an inexperienced user, rather I prefer the program to make decisions on it's own without asking me what to do. Should I require to undo or modify any action by Norton, I can certainly do so.

As for the lab results, I am a bit disappointed by Norton's performance, but every other AV has bad times if you check the previous reports, but I'm sure that Norton will improve in near future.

[AlienForce1]

Well that's the main reason I use Norton because it is automatic, not because I'm an inexperienced user, rather I prefer the program to make decisions on it's own without asking me what to do. Should I require to undo or modify any action by Norton, I can certainly do so.

As for the lab results, I am a bit disappointed by Norton's performance, but every other AV has bad times if you check the previous reports, but I'm sure that Norton will improve in near future.

- I was referring to the fact that Norton2012 doesn`t always make a copy to the quarantine when it disinfects or deletes a file :angry:

- if you look at all 2011 tests you will see that Norton had this year a lot false detections and medium detection level , and yet , an improvement can be expected in the next months

- I'm curious to see who will be easier on system resources : ESET , Norton , avast! or Avira ? :unsure:

[HX1]

And we have top Advanced +, Few to none, and average scanning speed for 500 please.. I guess I am going to have to change my 5% rule.. and raise the bar... now its moving up and companies are scoring big.. :think: What should it be.. top 2% or 3%? Now everybody qualifies... :P Now what...1 - 0.5%.. :lmao:

The challenge to me come from a better engine which more accurately finds real files.. low false positives to none.. the better the engine.. the better it could possibly be in detecting new threats before they are properly identified... Which is sort of a paradox of algorithms and engineering.. ( maybe thats the wrong term ).. and false positives... :dunno:

[majithia23]

- I was referring to the fact that Norton doesn`t always make a copy to the quarantine when it disinfects or deletes a file :angry:

- if you look at all 2011 tests you will see that Norton had this year a lot false detections and medium detection level , and yet , an improvement can be expected in the next months

- I'm curious to see who will be easier on system resources : ESET , Norton , avast! or Avira ? :unsure:

right .

Norton is a good AV , but its too automated . it does a lot on its own , and even if you ignore a file or put in exception list , it will keep nagging about it , one way or the other .

it has to improve upon it in these terms a lot ....

and it too has a light footprint .

but

the other major thing that pisses me off ,

is the mess it makes of the system when uninstalled . :angry:

meaning , it f@cking refuses to leave the system that easily .

even running the official Norton uninstall is not quite useful .

the uninstallation is just cosmetic ,

theres a load of stuff that remains behind .

and thee are certain Registry Keys under the Legacy header which leave behind and are just too difficult to delete . :frusty:

i experienced this the hard way ,

just a few days back when Eset Installation detected Norton was still on my system ,

when in fact i had it unintsalled 4 months back ...! :o

after installation the Eset and eventually the whole system when crazy ,

and i had to do a lot of tough and deep cleaning to wipe the Norton scum off ..

and

only then the Eset installed perfectly ...

i have always used Eset ,

just tried NAV for , well just trying ....

and then eventually back to old and gold ...

and commenting on Esets light footprint ,

hows this for a proof ....

for testing purpose, for the last 2 days ,

have lowered the CPU power to just less than half --- :rolleyes:

and have turned off all cosmetic features of Window

right now ...

FF is open with 11 tabs( 2 Youtube pages n 1 Pandora ) + Opera open with 3 tabs + Torrent is running + Music player is running + ESET is Running ! B)

and the system is fine .

just a little less responsive in between , but not at all troublesome and no major downtime ..

its running perfectly fine ...!! B)

this for me is a testimony of what a good piece of software in the anti-malware category should be like . Good Protection with No Performance Degrades ...!

(and more convincing when tested with Half the Power of Cpu !! ;) )

Eset for the Win -- Anytime ...!

[Tweety.Abd]

Well that's the main reason I use Norton because it is automatic, not because I'm an inexperienced user, rather I prefer the program to make decisions on it's own without asking me what to do. Should I require to undo or modify any action by Norton, I can certainly do so.

As for the lab results, I am a bit disappointed by Norton's performance, but every other AV has bad times if you check the previous reports, but I'm sure that Norton will improve in near future.

- I was referring to the fact that Norton doesn`t always make a copy to the quarantine when it disinfects or deletes a file :angry:

- if you look at all 2011 tests you will see that Norton had this year a lot false detections and medium detection level , and yet , an improvement can be expected in the next months

- I'm curious to see who will be easier on system resources : ESET , Norton , avast! or Avira ? :unsure:

As far as I know, if Norton 'Blocks' a file, then it doesn't store a copy of it, but if it does any other action (remove, etc.) it always stores a copy in the quarantine, but I haven't faced this issue in 2012 so far. Yes false positives can be expected, but if I trust a file, then I'll restore it from the quarantine and use it, and Norton's detection rates have been improving over the past few years and will continue to do so.

About the lightest AV solution, I'd say that it's Symantec, followed by Avast & ESET (based on my own usage experience).

[AlienForce1]

The challenge to me come from a better engine which more accurately finds real files.. low false positives to none.. the better the engine.. the better it could possibly be in detecting new threats before they are properly identified... Which is sort of a paradox of algorithms and engineering.. ( maybe thats the wrong term ).. and false positives... :dunno:

In this category I would put ESET and Kaspersky (here could be also F-Secure , but it uses 2 engines : 1st engine BitDefender and 2nd their own engine)

[R0H1T]

morteza

I think we all know about your love for all things Symantec from your posts before this topic ;)

The fact is top 5 AV products (ESET, AVIRA, NORTON, AVAST, KASPERSKY) are all pretty close in terms of detection rates & features, whilst some have added ones like HIPS in NOD32, antibanner in Kaspersky etc. others are light on sys resources like NORTON, AVAST, ESET 5 ! The point I'm trying to make here is that its ultimately how you configure them which makes all the difference in the end i.e. false positives, heuristics et al but NIS/NAV aren't the most flexible in this regard & infact I'd say that its a real pain in the arse trying to configure or more accurately answer those false alarms(positives).

P>S> IDK whether this counts as a win for ESET or not but NOD32(4/5) is the only AV solution out there which was able to show me realtime data traffic(amount of data) under 3G(GSM/CDMA) connection as well as bluetooth PAN besides ethernet, on the other hand most others do not fully support wireless broadband & other types of data connections !

[morteza]

morteza

I think we all know about your love for all things Symantec from your posts before this topic ;)

The fact is top 5 AV products (ESET, AVIRA, NORTON, AVAST, KASPERSKY) are all pretty close in terms of detection rates & features, whilst some have added ones like HIPS in NOD32, antibanner in Kaspersky etc. others are light on sys resources like NORTON, AVAST, ESET 5 ! The point I'm trying to make here is that its ultimately how you configure them which makes all the difference in the end i.e. false positives, heuristics et al but NIS/NAV aren't the most flexible in this regard & infact I'd say that its a real pain in the arse trying to configure or more accurately answer those false alarms(positives).

P>S> IDK whether this counts as a win for ESET or not but NOD32(4/5) is the only AV solution out there which was able to show me realtime data traffic(amount of data) under 3G(GSM/CDMA) connection as well as bluetooth PAN besides ethernet, on the other hand most others do not fully support wireless broadband & other types of data connections !

You use ESET only for its traffic diagram?come on.You can use other Internet meter solutions.Yeah i love Symantec but which company can create this level of products and they all have good quality?I don't know but i'm sure Symantec is very well.