AV Comparatives Test Results December Updates

[Ceyfer √]

1.Retrospective/ProActive Test

"The Retrospective test report of November has been released. Go to www.av-comparatives.org, click on Comparatives and select the Report Nr. 20 to read the detailed test results.


Many products got lower awards due too many false alarms. Please read carefully the full report!


We will make the result tables (which are also inside the above mentioned report) online next week, as readers should really read the full report to understand the results.


During December we will also release the Summary Report, which will award the Product of the Year etc."

Sadly Kaspersky ( Advanced ) was penalized too for having to many FP's though it does match Avira on proactive /heuristic/generic detection capabilities**

Online Result

http://www.av-comparatives.org/seiten/ergebnisse_2008_11.php

Table Overview

http://www.av-comparatives.org/seiten/overview.html







2.Performance Test

Kaspersky was placed at 10th and only got an Advanced certification level unlike Eset and Symantec ( both deserve to win Advanced+)

Pdf Report here
http://www.av-comparatives.org/seiten/ergebnisse/performance2008a.pdf

[Raymond]

Damn, looks like their new 2009 engine has got some problems.

[shan]

i bet u eset will be the product of the year and the lowest false postive award will be with mcafee or microsoft

[Raymond]

i bet u eset will be the product of the year and the lowest false postive award will be with mcafee or microsoft

I have to be honest but that's like the weirdest decision ever. Microsoft? Since when Microsoft came in and dominate the antivirus world?

[shan]

i meant detecting fack virus dude check the reports for 2008 microsoft and mcafee has got the lowest false postive detection.

i checked thier updates and they only relese 15 to 47 signatures per day while sometimes zero "0". but if u look at kaspersky when i last used it one day it gave me 1909 malware update (might be my claculation error but still 1000~

and ray u start to sound more like my friend rukshan

[Raymond]

It does make sense that less signature will have less false positives but it can also mean less detection of real viruses.

And I don't know who is rukshan.

[Ceyfer √]

I do agree on ur words sir Raymond.

But I never tested Microsoft AV - coz it is still under par though its keep on improving but its technology is quite medieval compared to KAV /Norton...

[Raymond]

False positive is not a big problem as long as it doesn't detect windows file as a threat like what AVG did last month. An example is Avira. Avira is well known for very good detection on virus but at the same time it is like the king of false positives.

Still, it gained a lot of popularity because it does what antivirus supposed to do that is to detect and keep virus away. For l33t people like us that always downloading stuff, we can always analyze the suspicious file with ThreatExpert.

[Mark]

I hope my Anti Virus (Sophos) doesnt detect too many false positives as AV comparitives's result said Sophos had ')very) many' false positives

[Ceyfer √]

check this out - not bad for competition

Microsoft to offer free consumer Security Suite - 2009



http://news.cnet.com/8301-1009_3-10101582-83.html