Hi Guys
There is a new AV-Comparatives test dated Nov 09 it is a Retrospective/Proactive Test. I know av-comparatives has a thing for not posting a direct link, so I won’t. However here is a link that I can post:
http://www.av-comparatives.org/comparativesreviews/main-tests
A surprise Adavance+ winner is Microsoft Security Essentials. Enjoy and Comment.
PS: CIS did not participate, Melih is still waiting for an AMTSO board review approved test, sort of. ;D
Peace.
Their high false positive rate hurt Avira.
but overall, they held their position.
I don’t think it’s a very meaningful test since it did not test on execution or behavioral detection.
It’s coming in a few weeks.
Peace.
I already know the responses ;D ;D
It's coming in a few weeks.
I already know the responses
Be interesting to see if they submit their new tests for AMTSO approval (since they’re a member and all ;))
Melih
You’re lucky. Avira does have a knack for FP’s. It’s much better than it used to be though.
Avira’s update process is their real problem,especially for their free version.I have heard they (Avira) have sorted this issue out but it took Avira month(s) to do so :-[ I’ll never use Avira again.
I’ll stick with with comodo 
Look at Symantec (nortan) test at the AV-Comparatives NOV 09 Test. It’s among the worst
A very funny thing that I should mention (IMO of course)
According to a recent Symantec (nortan) PAID FOR private test from a different lab. Symantec (nortan) got a 100% on the test and Avira was among the worst.
Those test result numbers sure wasn’t close to the ones AV_Comparatives NOV 09 test results numbers for nortan. -----{Well Surprise Surprise Surprise Surprise }------ I guess it doesn’t take a genius to figure out why, Huh >:-D
I guess maybe Nortan’s “Sonar 2” was looking for North Korean submarines instead of computer infections. >:-D LOL >:-D
According to the report the tests were run offline so Sonar wouldn’t have been used.That’s the problem with these tests they cripple the softwares full capabilities.
Your input in this thread would be appreciated
thank you
Melih
Nor did I,when I used it,other than the odd “Heuristic Malware” detection,with Heuristics set to max.
(Which to be fair to Avira,they warn you to expect.)
The test penalized them for false positives.
Right or wrong,of the test,that all I was saying.
Now,ask me about updateing dreck!!
I will tell you my tale of woe!!
Hey Jaki… sorry…
[b]Please link only to our main site [u]www.av-comparatives.org[/u][/b]
Kyle,Why sorry? Melih,the CEO,and Panic a moderator,have replied to this thread,
without an apparent problem.
An ice cold coke.A crispy grilled cheese.
Chill.
I think Kyle was pointing out to Jaki that he (Jaki) should only link to the main AV-Comparatives site, not to individual documents within the site. I can only assume that Jaki mistakedly linked directly to a document somewhere earlier on in this topic.
Ewen
Understood.
But in all honesty, it can be a pain just to find the test results on that site.
Linking?
Well, that is above my skill set.
Exactly right, the full capabilities of Norton, and others in the list, were not tested.
It’s funny isn’t it? Symantec was bragging how much better their paid software is compared to Microsoft’s Security Essentials… and what’s the reality? MSE spanks Norton Anti-Virus.
tests were run offline so Sonar wouldn't have been used.That's the problem with these tests they cripple the softwares full capabilities.This is the way I see it, If your computer infection knocks your computer "offline" or makes your internet so slow it might as well be offline. The softwares full capabilites are crippled. Very realistic and common senerio