AV-Comparatives.org releases October file detection test

[YeOldeStonecat]

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

Quite a shakeup....for the first time in a while I've seen a product get below 90% detection rates....Symantec at 89%.

Advanced "+" winners
F-Securre
Kaspersky
Bitdefender
Emsisoft
Bullguard
Fortinte
Sophos
Trend Micro

Advanced winners
Avira
GData
McAfee
Panda
eScan
Vipre/GFI
AVG
Eset
Avast

Standard winner
AhnLab

Symantec at the bottom with "tested" status and no award.

I was kinda shocked to see Avast, Eset, and GData slip down into the "average" category.

 

[BrentfromZulu]

It's strange to see this. I would expect Symantec to be doing better than that...

Maximum PC every year will do a round up of Antivirus Software and review them all at once (try to get infections and whatnot). Norton would seemingly do really well on their suites and typically get a 9 to a 9+kickass score (basically 9.5 score). It was strange to hear them say that but to them they have a much better product and they did well on their tests. It's strange to me that they gave them a good score, but here it is CLEARLY the worst of the bunch...

 

[ComputerRepairTech]

thats because its definition test, without sonar norton is nothing.

 

[YeOldeStonecat]

thats because its definition test, without sonar norton is nothing.

It's a file detection test, and to keep a level playing field they allow internet connections to be maintained so that "cloud based" AV programs can fairly participate in the scans.

 

[ComputerRepairTech]

It's a file detection test, and to keep a level playing field they allow internet connections to be maintained so that "cloud based" AV programs can fairly participate in the scans.

yeah but avs like nortons sonar isnt checking the digital cert, emulating actions, etc etc

 

[nhicktrush]

Hmm, so now we already know what to use right..

 

[phaZed]

Thanks for the heads up on the new report, as always

Is it just me or does the av-comparatives testing not reflect reality? I don't mean to attack their testing or methods, but how it the heck did McAfee and AVG score in Advanced and Trend Micro, Sophos and Bitdefender score in Advanced+?

McAfee and AVG seems to be totally toothless IMO, both reflected in the customers that come in with infections and in my lab setups.
Being located in a city with many Colleges and Universities, Sophos is the go-to AV software for these schools, for their students.. yet I get infected Sophos units ALL THE TIME. Then, I currently have 2 laptops with Bitdefender installed with active subscriptions that have (1) a common rogue AV that should have been an easy detection and (2) an FBI virus - on my desk at this very moment.

Meanwhile, I have been deploying GFI Vipre via Remote Management and have had Zero issues with infections for over 80+ computers in the span of 6 months.

 

[ComputerRepairTech]

Thanks for the heads up on the new report, as always

Is it just me or does the av-comparatives testing not reflect reality? I don't mean to attack their testing or methods, but how it the heck did McAfee and AVG score in Advanced and Trend Micro, Sophos and Bitdefender score in Advanced+?

McAfee and AVG seems to be totally toothless IMO, both reflected in the customers that come in with infections and in my lab setups.
Being located in a city with many Colleges and Universities, Sophos is the go-to AV software for these schools, for their students.. yet I get infected Sophos units ALL THE TIME. Then, I currently have 2 laptops with Bitdefender installed with active subscriptions that have (1) a common rogue AV that should have been an easy detection and (2) an FBI virus - on my desk at this very moment.

Meanwhile, I have been deploying GFI Vipre via Remote Management and have had Zero issues with infections for over 80+ computers in the span of 6 months.

For bitdefender think you may have AVC off. Its not uncommon for the antivirus definitions not to pick up new variants of a virus but AVC would usually pick up the suspicious activity.

 

[YeOldeStonecat]

Is it just me or does the av-comparatives testing not reflect reality? I don't mean to attack their testing or methods, but how it the heck did McAfee and AVG score in Advanced and Trend Micro, Sophos and Bitdefender score in Advanced+?

McAfee and AVG seems to be totally toothless IMO, both reflected in the customers that come in with infections and in my lab setups.
Being located in a city with many Colleges and Universities, Sophos is the go-to AV software for these schools, for their students.. yet I get infected Sophos units ALL THE TIME. Then, I currently have 2 laptops with Bitdefender installed with active subscriptions that have (1) a common rogue AV that should have been an easy detection and (2) an FBI virus - on my desk at this very moment.

Meanwhile, I have been deploying GFI Vipre via Remote Management and have had Zero issues with infections for over 80+ computers in the span of 6 months.

I find their tests to be quite good, especially their "real world dynamics" tests...of which this one isn't. This test here is on files....not "web based threats"...so it's more on traditional viruses than web exploits.

Bitdefender is a top AV product and deserves to be towards the top of any test...I find it no surprise. However I see enough IT guys that use Vipre complain about it, and have some colleagues that use it and aren't impressed with it...so I think it's accurate to be in the middle.

Anyways...not to turn it into a fanboy thread...I think it's educational to all to watch the trends of AV products and the recent test scores. Spend enough years watching these...and you'll see many products wax and wane on the charts each year. The key is to go with the ones that are consistent.

 

[phaZed]

Anyways...not to turn it into a fanboy thread...I think it's educational to all to watch the trends of AV products and the recent test scores. Spend enough years watching these...and you'll see many products wax and wane on the charts each year. The key is to go with the ones that are consistent.

Agreed. Speaking of waxing and waning, I have not seen another AV swing up and down so much as Symantec.. last test they were way up there, before that they sucked.. now they are back to sucking, lol.

 

[YeOldeStonecat]

yeah but avs like nortons sonar isnt checking the digital cert, emulating actions, etc etc

They're given an internet connection so it can check up against their cloud resources like the other cloud based AV's that are in the test. AV-C does that to keep the playing field level. There's some threads over at Wilders about that from prior File Detection tests.

 

[codegreen]

Holy crap, Symantec!

I'm sad to see Vipre further cementing its place as a low to mid-tier product, "leading" the pack with Symantec with the most false positives.

 

[ComputerRepairTech]

They're given an internet connection so it can check up against their cloud resources like the other cloud based AV's that are in the test. AV-C does that to keep the playing field level. There's some threads over at Wilders about that from prior File Detection tests.

Its been the same pattern for a while now and i've posted about it on several occasions when people were oogling over the real world protection results. Symantec has always blown in the detection results for years now and similar behaving av's have as well. They simply do not do the same checks on a regular scan and because av comparitives uses popular files for false positive tests they don't bomb it. You take a bunch of legit non signed applications and try to run them on a machine with norton and its going to delete them...well not sure what its doing right now that they arent participating in the real world protection tests from what i can see but thats what it was doing for the longest.