AV comparatives on demand test for September.

Gary · Sep 16, 2008, 10:31:53

AV comparatives show Avira, Avast, and Norton 2009 topping the AV results, looks like Norton 2009 dare I say it has fantastic detection abilities but Avira has the best. Norton with its new engine and 15 minute update cycle seems to be doing very well indeed. Kaspersky had more false positives this time around but achieved an advanced + rating the difference between many and few seems to be one false positive, 28 fp which is low and 29 fp which is many

still something that Kaspersky need to work on though. Of course all fp will have been fixed now for all vendor's, Eset achieved an Advanced this time round with few fp, a drop from the last on demand test where it received an advanced +

See AV comparatives for results of the results in detail. Also remember that things like behavioural blockers, HIPS etc will effect the performance of you AV, which are not taken into account in these tests

1st: Avira
2nd: Gdata
3rd: Symantec
4th: Avast
5th: Trustport
6th: Kaspersky
7th: AVG
8th: Eset
9th: BitDefender
10th: F-Secure
11th: eScan
12th: Sophos
13th: Norman
14th: Microsoft
15th: McAfee
16th: VBA32

Rik · Sep 16, 2008, 10:39:34

Interesting, Gary, but it would take a lot to persuade me to put Norton on a machine again.

Simon · Sep 16, 2008, 11:25:00

It would take a lot to persuade me to switch from F-Secure. Not had an infection since using it.

Gary · Sep 16, 2008, 11:44:44

Quote from: Rik on Sep 16, 2008, 10:39:34
Interesting, Gary, but it would take a lot to persuade me to put Norton on a machine again.

I agree Rik, but interesting results never the less

Gary · Sep 16, 2008, 11:57:48

Quote from: Simon on Sep 16, 2008, 11:25:00
It would take a lot to persuade me to switch from F-Secure. Not had an infection since using it.

I think these comparatives should be only used as a rough guide Simon but it shows that faster signature updates do help over just heuristics and a few signature updates a day, Avira's detection rating its outstanding though and closing that window of attack is what its all about, saying you have never been infected is great but if the window of possible infection grows that's a big worry. A decent firewall, or HIPS system with behavioural blocking that shows what's going on in your pc and what is being communicated out from our pc's is just as important as blocking what comes in, otherwise our AV could miss it all and we may never know we are infected till its too late

Simon · Sep 16, 2008, 12:34:46

I've never tried Avira, so can't comment on it. F-Secure checks for updates hourly, and usually updates a couple of times a day, in my experience.

Gary · Sep 16, 2008, 13:35:22

Quote from: Simon on Sep 16, 2008, 12:34:46
I've never tried Avira, so can't comment on it. F-Secure checks for updates hourly, and usually updates a couple of times a day, in my experience.

Thing is virus, tojans are released every minute of the day and also mutate as well so new signatures need to be added, its a tough job for any company to keep up Simon

Simon · Sep 16, 2008, 13:41:37

True, but then, believe it or not, I'm not online every minute of the day

so as long as it updates when I am, that's about as good as I can get. I also practise safe surfing, so the chances of being infected are reduced by that also.

Sebby · Sep 16, 2008, 15:22:45

It seems as they've forgotten to take into account that Norton itself is an infection.

Rik · Sep 16, 2008, 15:24:04

Gary · Sep 17, 2008, 01:39:42

Quote from: Sebby on Sep 16, 2008, 15:22:45
It seems as they've forgotten to take into account that Norton itself is an infection.

2009 scores high Sebby uses different coding and cloud computing for updates every 15 minutes thats now the fastest in the industry, its getting reviews that are top notch from Norton haters, I still would not want it on my pc but you cant ignore the detection ratings, I'm no Norton fan, I use Kaspersky but the results are great and reviews show minimum slowdowns on the new AV, maybe the worm has turned

and it beat Kaspersky and Nod, and AV comparatives is the most respected test of AV software in the business. Kaspersky got 94.8% for malware, Nod 78.8% and Norton was 0.8% behind Kaspersky at 94%

Sebby · Sep 17, 2008, 13:32:11

Okay, in fairness, I probably would give it a try. The only reason I doubt it is because the last version was supposed to be hugely better (less resource hungry, etc) yet it was exactly the same. Perhaps I'll download a trial of 2009 a few days before I'm due to format my PC.

somanyholes · Sep 17, 2008, 14:41:33

does this mean i have to take this off? http://www.jinx.com/men/shirts/coding_security/not_even_norton.html lol.

In fairness it does seem that they are doing better. They recently bought pctools, which make the likes of threatfire which i'm a fan of, hopefully they will put this technology to good use

On the other side of the coin, why pay when you can get security software free that works well.... Also the larger the attack vector the more likely bad code is to be able to turn your defenses off. And in truth i'm not a fan of one service controlling all my security. Single point of failure and all that.

Norton will always leave a bitter taste in my mouth. Not saying will never go back though .....

Gary · Sep 17, 2008, 14:50:35

Quote from: somanyholes on Sep 17, 2008, 14:41:33
does this mean i have to take this off? http://www.jinx.com/men/shirts/coding_security/not_even_norton.html lol.

In fairness it does seem that they are doing better. They recently bought pctools, which make the likes of threatfire which i'm a fan of, hopefully they will put this technology to good use

On the other side of the coin, why pay when you can get security software free that works well.... Also the larger the attack vector the more likely bad code is to be able to turn your defenses off. And in truth i'm not a fan of one service controlling all my security. Single point of failure and all that.

Norton will always leave a bitter taste in my mouth. Not saying will never go back though .....

Ihave to agree with you So, but by not storing all the signatures on your pc and only scanning new and changed files it may be better, but Norton always has and will scare me....evil....but you never know

Gary · Sep 17, 2008, 14:52:23

Quote from: Sebby on Sep 17, 2008, 13:32:11
Okay, in fairness, I probably would give it a try. The only reason I doubt it is because the last version was supposed to be hugely better (less resource hungry, etc) yet it was exactly the same. Perhaps I'll download a trial of 2009 a few days before I'm due to format my PC.

They do have a habit of saying that Sebby

Simon · Sep 17, 2008, 16:32:08

Quote from: Sebby on Sep 17, 2008, 13:32:11
Okay, in fairness, I probably would give it a try. The only reason I doubt it is because the last version was supposed to be hugely better (less resource hungry, etc) yet it was exactly the same. Perhaps I'll download a trial of 2009 a few days before I'm due to format my PC.

That's exactly the trouble, isn't it? I might have trialled it myself, but once it's on your machine, you're stuck with bits of it forever.

Rik · Sep 17, 2008, 16:33:42

It even adds an entry in your will.

Sebby · Sep 17, 2008, 19:10:14

It wouldn't surprise me, Rik. It gets everywhere.

Gary · Sep 18, 2008, 08:29:03

Quote from: Simon on Sep 17, 2008, 16:32:08
That's exactly the trouble, isn't it? I might have trialled it myself, but once it's on your machine, you're stuck with bits of it forever.

Bit like Microsoft

Simon · Sep 18, 2008, 09:42:32