New AV-Comparatives

Hi Guys

There is a new AV-Comparatives for Aug. 09. I hope CIS will participate soon. Enjoy.

www.av-comparatives.org

Peace.

Please link only to our main site www.av-comparatives.org.
We do not allow to host our test reports/documents on other sites without our permission.
If you find anything on other sites, please inform the forum/site admin to remove it.

May I ask, with all due respect “what is the big deal?” The AV-Comparatives test is not “the” test that everybody rely solely upon, it is just a test. Whether or not the pdf link is posted directly here or the web site itself, tell me what is the difference? The bottom line is the result of such a test that should be accessible and read by whoever might be interested.

Tell me, is it permissible to print it or is it forbidden? if it is I can tell you right now, you’ve got to be kidding, no way. :-TD

Peace. >:-D

This test shows that Virus.gr is a joke. Symantec is again at top as expected, same goes for avast!.

Last avast experience I didn’t feel it’s a fast scanner. :frowning:
If they said avast is very fast, Comodo will be “Super Very Fast” scanner.

With all due respect, jaki, it is their site and they are the intellectual copyright holders of all internally generated data therein. As such, have every right to set the terms and conditions, including what you can and cannot link to. Not allowing links to subpages is a common condition.

Ewen :slight_smile:

Honestly, if they would be an independant organisation, why are they linking to sunbelt ? All these minor things make it harder to believe that they’re really independant.
But let’s consider they’re… until proven otherwise

eXPerience

[attachment deleted by admin]

And how does Sunblet come into equasion? They are not even testing their software. So, i don’t see any prioblem. They have to get funds somewhere and ads are one of the ways. It’s just an ad for CWSandbox. Not really related to any of tests.

I was not stealing their intellectual property. I never claimed that I conducted the test myself. I just posted a direct link of the test result. To me and in that context AV-Comparatives is just stupid, plain stupid.

Peace.

Well, i think liking to main site is stupid. I see absolutelly no reason not to link directly to:
http://www.av-comparatives.org/comparativesreviews/main-tests

It’s still their site, just pointing directly to the test in question. It’s not PDF directly and even if it was, it’s still av-comparatives domain. So what gives? I’d understand with my webpage where i use URL forwarding instead full fledged domain. So links have different URL than my main page. It makes sense here. But where domain is displayed all the time, i find it a rather funny move.

I cannot believe what I’m about to say but for the first time I can say that I agree with you, Oh my God ;D. Yes indeed, linking to their main web site is stupid, as matter of fact stupid to the superlative. :-TU

Peace.

Andreas (IBK) from AV-Comparatives confirmed that it’s allowed to link to:
http://www.av-comparatives.org/comparativesreviews/main-tests

…but not directly to PDF files. This way you can at least point users to a specific test group.

Avast got Advanced+ ???

Just go to youtube and watch mrizos and PegHorse’s tests and then decide if you should trust these “independent” comparatives.

And Mcafee got Advanced :o

Just watch the following video. It’s in french but the images speak for themselves. Trust me, it’s 8 minutes worth spending.

- YouTube

Please stop quoting what PegHorse … It’s a shame so-called tester. In reality this is an impostor who dreams of fame and nothing more.

PS: sorry for my bad English

Avast is a great program, but it needs V5 to compete with the best IMO :slight_smile:

eXPerience

Hi,

Can you explain yourself please?

I find PegHouse tests very reliable as they show how poor some AVs are in reality. Some AVs are hiding behind AV Comparatives to lure customers to buy their products and when the users get infected then only they say that no AV is perfect.

Since none of them can keep up with rogue/fake AVs and they perform so badly against fresh urls, then how can it be that these same AVs are scoring around 98-99%?

Thanks

I will not explain long but I’m just saying that not bother to mention this one because his testing its unreal: While he is testing the url as recent but it does test that 3 or 4 is absolutely ridiculous .

Then, what interest test online? No, it is an AV with scan test reactions but certainly not 10 minutes.

Proof, if you look at his tests (for example) Gdata he said that this software is very good while in his own Gdata test fails. However he said the opposite on some software that detects all the same and / or are not worse than Gdata. In conclusion, for me PegHorse just had “good idea” to believe that software testing of safety video, nothing more.

You do not need to understand me but you’re also old enough to know if the tests Peghorse you agree, after all, there are also some fans Matousec which for me is not a reference, but someone one who gets paid by some publishers: it is no secret to anyone.
You do not need to understand me but you’re also old enough to know if the tests Peghorse you agree, after all, there are also some fans Matousec which for me is not a reference, but someone one who gets paid by some publishers: it is no secret to anyone.

EDIT: why after you have organizations like AV-Comparatives take several months to conduct testing? I have more confidence in Av-comparative that PegHorse (if I compare …)

PegHorse does what every malware tester should do: he trys to break the AV, get it to its knees. And he more often than not manages to do it.

So the question is: what point is there of having a protection that cannot protect itself.

And the other question is: how come that one guy destroys an AV with twenty or so URL’s and an independent comparatives site bombards the same AV with hundreds or thousands of samples and the product comes unscatched and with detection rates close to 100%.

There’s a discrepancy here.

Jose.