AV-Test.Org Releases Real-World Malware Protection Report

Magdeburg-based research lab AV-Test.org today released the results of a lengthy real-world malware protection study. This test challenged a dozen major security suites to protect Internet-connected physical computers against up-to-the-minute threats. Each day for 60 days, researchers released 10 fresh threats on the test systems and analyzed each product’s ability to detect the threat and to fully block its installation. They also checked for false alarms–valid programs reported as malware. All of the suites did a decent job, though some were significantly better than others.

Take it they are all paid for…why don’t these websites test CIS, most of them seem to favour those who pay to advertise with them I suppose? Well when v4 comes out I’m sure it will be on par with the best of them, which they won’t like as it means less sales for them. :ilovecomodo: :BNC :■■■■

I’m glad CIS wasn’t tested by these people… Anything associated with PCMag is junk, they always has these close weird tests that seems to go against what the rest of the security community experience. Oh, and they have rated Norton highest for like the last decade no matter what they are always best in any test, and click here to buy…

Who can forget that HIPS test on D+ where they clicked allow on everything unless it said “malware”… 88) And they also reached the conclusions that the firewall failed to prevent public test tools that CIS has been passing for a long time (retested by several users)… When there was an attempt to question them about this they didn’t reply…

Not that it was officially PCMag that made this test… But PCMag usually is very happy to say what is best and what isn’t based on some close weird testing by some unknown testing organisation that just poped up with 15 years or more experience… PCMag is as most know a resellers of a lot of the pay-wares they test…

At least to me that makes me think that they are probably biased. And their refusal to discuss their testing makes their tests even less trustworthy… :-TD IMO its good that CIS wasn’t tested by these people.

A quote from AV-Test.org:

The company AV-Test GmbH is a worldwide operating and leading service provider for IT security testing and consultancy services.

Self-claimed world leaders you never heard of… :-TD :-TD

And what kind of ■■■■■■ calls the FP’s “Few”, “almost none” and “many”? It tells us nothing…

What is a few to them…?? and what is almost none… how many FPs did the one with many have?? And why don’t they say what programs where detected as FPs like other organization?

EDIT:: thanks for posting the test tho…!

Those test and AV-Test.org are not related with PCMag, PCMag is only reporting the results
I think that you dont understand that those test are quite better than any other test from AV Comparatives, and shows how the AV’s perform in real conditions. In fact AVComparatives is going to do something similar soon.
AV-Test.org is as prestigious as AVComparatives or more.

You can see more detailed results here:

EDIT: “In fact AVComparatives is going to do something similar soon.” Not soon, today :slight_smile:

Thanks for the explanation about AV-Test.org and PCMags relations… I can’t read German that well, but I tried, the numbers of FPs is still impossible to figure out unless I missed it due to to the language…? 8)

I consider dynamical tests better than static ones too… :-TU However this dynamic test is not of my taste… I don’t find it reliable due to several reasons… Mostly since the reports lacks a lot of information…

There is no info about what programs were wrongly detected? We get no info about what settings were used… Did they share samples or was this just a close testing?

Its good that they try to do dynamic tests, but they needs to be more openly done… (sharing all samples, and offer people to retest to confirm the result) These days all you see is a number… Well great, anyone can make a site explaining how they tested several products against zero days tests and here is the conclusion…

IMO, Youtube reviews are even better than what the testing organizations are doing these days…
They are (usually) both dynamic, and you at least get to see what links, what malware and what damage…

This is just me personally, but I trust Matt and langguys reviews more than what this site is doing…

Take a look to this test, same method:

Maybe this is going to like you more.

Unless it’s AMTSO compliant, Don’t waste your breath guys. The discussion will not end.

And this is why? only because Comodo say…

Of-course. A lot of us would like it to be tested, but it’s comodo who has the final say. Unless it’s been verified\reviewed by the AMTSO board then it’s a no go.

Nobody is saying nothing about why Comodo is not participating in the test, this is a bad and poor excuse ;D
I would bet that if those test would have the AMTSO verification Comodo would not participate anyway.

I would take that bet if I knew you… =)

More than happy to bet!
How much? :wink:


The AV comparatives test mentioned would appear to fit the AMTSO criteria having skimmed through it,so perhaps somebody should put it forward for review since from what I gather,this is their way of doing things?

I’m more than happy to lodge $50 Australian with a JP and take you up on your bet. :wink:

Jaja, I think that I am not going to bet finally, doesnt seems to be a very good idea to do it vs the CEO and a global Moderator of the software ;D

For me Pcmag has a bias for freeware.
Certainly Anti-Virus program.