New Independent Test Favours Avast!

MidnightCowboy · 14. Sep 2010, 02:36 PM

This new test looks at a bunch of recent releases and attempts to test their effectiveness in "real world" situations. Of the freeware included, only Avast! scored above average. The test was sponsored by Symantec

... although worth reading this too.

http://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?t=256947

You can download the full report (PDF) from the link towards the bottom of their page.

Doobie · 14. Sep 2010, 04:48 PM

The test was sponsored by Semantic and their product did the best. These kinds of tests are so easy to fudge that they really need to be done by independent 3rd parties.

On the other hand, Avast! didn't sponsor it and they did pretty good. Actually, none of the popular free anti-virus programs did bad.

MidnightCowboy · 14. Sep 2010, 05:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doobie

The test was sponsored by Semantic and their product did the best. These kinds of tests are so easy to fudge that they really need to be done by independent 3rd parties.

On the other hand, Avast! didn't sponsor it and they did pretty good. Actually, none of the popular free anti-virus programs did bad.

Very true and as I've said many times folks must take what they will from these various "tests". It's still interesting data though because if anything it demonstrates the realization that just having a 99.7% effective scanner isn't much good against modern day malware. What I would really like to see though is a test which incorporates third party DNS filtering services as well such as ClearCloud, Comodo or Norton. i.e. if 40 samples were used and half of the host sites were recognised by the DNS filter then the AV test is only relevant for the 20 left. This assumes of course that folks will be using a third party DNS service but only by publishing such results will we know for sure if this is a worthwhile exercise. Currently I believe that this is more important than your choice of mainstream security software but I could well be wrong

bo.elam · 14. Sep 2010, 07:35 PM

I don't know which tests are honest or not but when a company sponsors
some tests and they come on top, I just scratch my head a little bit in
disbelief. If a testing company send samples to some participants and not
to others is like a teacher giving the questions out before a exam to some
students in advance but not to all the students. I am not saying that's
what happened here but that's what I read about those other tests that
were discussed here a few days ago. Not good, so now I only look at them
for what they worth. Casi Nada.

Bo

eyeb · 16. Sep 2010, 04:15 AM

I know a lot of people pay attention to these tests... but to me they are all meaningless... what I mean is that all these tests fighting over 0.1-1.0% then claiming to be the best... for me that much is the same as a margin of error meaning I view the results all as if they were the same. Being 99.99% and 99% or even 97% will still give the user the same lvl of protection.

Maybe one of you can explain how it's matters, but if I have to one rated at 99.9% with max settings then I'd most likely change settings to make it more user friendly thus lowering it from the 99.9%. If using a more friendly but rated at 97% antivirus means I can keep the settings and it will stay 97%. So in end both will be around same lvl of detection. Or is my logic flawed?

14. Sep 2010, 02:36 PM	#1 (permalink)
MidnightCowboy Site Manager Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: South American Banana Republic, third bunch from the left Posts: 9,250	New Independent Test Favours Avast! This new test looks at a bunch of recent releases and attempts to test their effectiveness in "real world" situations. Of the freeware included, only Avast! scored above average. The test was sponsored by Symantec ... although worth reading this too. http://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?t=256947 You can download the full report (PDF) from the link towards the bottom of their page. __________________ Knows nothing and cares even less Last edited by MidnightCowboy; 14. Sep 2010 at 02:41 PM.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

14. Sep 2010, 04:48 PM	#2 (permalink)
Doobie Full Member Join Date: May 2010 Posts: 39	The test was sponsored by Semantic and their product did the best. These kinds of tests are so easy to fudge that they really need to be done by independent 3rd parties. On the other hand, Avast! didn't sponsor it and they did pretty good. Actually, none of the popular free anti-virus programs did bad.

14. Sep 2010, 07:35 PM	#4 (permalink)
bo.elam Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2009 Posts: 1,224	I don't know which tests are honest or not but when a company sponsors some tests and they come on top, I just scratch my head a little bit in disbelief. If a testing company send samples to some participants and not to others is like a teacher giving the questions out before a exam to some students in advance but not to all the students. I am not saying that's what happened here but that's what I read about those other tests that were discussed here a few days ago. Not good, so now I only look at them for what they worth. Casi Nada. Bo

16. Sep 2010, 04:15 AM	#5 (permalink)
eyeb Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: Planet X Posts: 487	I know a lot of people pay attention to these tests... but to me they are all meaningless... what I mean is that all these tests fighting over 0.1-1.0% then claiming to be the best... for me that much is the same as a margin of error meaning I view the results all as if they were the same. Being 99.99% and 99% or even 97% will still give the user the same lvl of protection. Maybe one of you can explain how it's matters, but if I have to one rated at 99.9% with max settings then I'd most likely change settings to make it more user friendly thus lowering it from the 99.9%. If using a more friendly but rated at 97% antivirus means I can keep the settings and it will stay 97%. So in end both will be around same lvl of detection. Or is my logic flawed?