Hmmm… Comodo Antivirus get very bad. CIS does not get a good picture also 
Avira is quite good in detection (both reactive and proactive).
Kaspersky still in the top.
Surprises me the Lavasoft Total :o
Comodo seems to have 75% or so. I don’t really understand how they rate such thing. Maybe comodo should ask them to have proactive on.
Procedures are published.
For each product entered for a review, we measure detection using our standard on-demand scanning procedure; this uses default product settings and ignores detections labelled as 'suspicious' only.
Interesting , very . According to this test , Fortinet/FortiClient did better than CAV . Throw on CIS as a whole , the results are better , but not quite good enough . Seems like Sophos , MSE , Symantec , Avast , & Avira fared better . While this may not be indicative of the quality of CIS as a whole , this test result doesn’t exactly paint a bright picture . Things that make you go hmmm…
Well if they ignore “suspicious” detections then there could be a ton of files CAV’s detected with Heur.Suspicious, but they ignored…
But are they infected or suspicious only?
In any case, CAV should go for a more precise detection/naming, don’t you think?
Well to be accurate “Heur.Suspicious” signatures are made on Comodo’s servers using advanced Heuristics, so the name is correct. Such detections as you may know Tech, detect a range of malware, How ever I would agree a improve in naming would not hurt 
But what did Avira and Kaspersky do to achieve such a high level of proactive detection?
They use heuristics as Comodo. Why weren’t their detections considered “suspicious” then?
That was my doubt about naming.
Still do not understand.
I’m so bored with AV detection rates.
This time last year when I was shopping around for a new AV/firewall
I found the test chart from PC Magazine (below) and the
Matousec test and I made my decision to go with CIS.
I think it’s strange that Mbam and SuperAntiSpyware aren’t on this Virus bulletin chart
–or maybe they are, it’s a very chaotic chart.
And how is it that Emisoft gets trounced by Lavasoft and Coranti??
[attachment deleted by admin]
Virus bulletin is a very serious company. For sure they’re not bashing one company or another. They choose a methodology and here are the results.
I think this won’t be the thread to discuss Matousec. I have my reserves of his tests and posted elsewhere.
That’s fine, I don’t want to discuss Matousec either (so boring) and I know all the arguments against it…
(yes I visit Wilders) so let’s not go there.
But do you really think Coranti or Zeobit (???) is better than Emsisoft? or Avast!?
Well… at least in this test.
No, I personally never heard much about Coranti or Zeobit (I know… I can Google…).
Emsisoft is very aggressive, it’s not a surprise it gets a high proactive detection.
CAV is not a surprise for me, unfortunately.
Lavasoft is a surprise for me.
But also the very low rate of Comodo products (specially CIS).
I haven’t heard of Zeobit (the AV) before. But, I think Coranti is effectively; F-Prot, BitDefender & Lavasoft (ie. it uses all 3 engines).
Kail, what about CAV and CIS?
What could be “wrong” in their methodology?
It’s a pity that there is no room for discussion in their webpage.
I’m sorry, I don’t know anything about VB’s testing methods or methodologies.
edit: edit removed lol
That’s really the point I was trying to make.
In this test Norton is owned by TrustPort and UnThreat…?
for me this undermines the whole “AV test”.
For the last 3 months I’ve gone without a real time AV.
I run all my browsers in Sandboxie and I have Def+ set to alert and block
everything. (Not set to Paranoid, however)
At the end of the day I delete the Sandbox, run CCleaner, HitmanPro, and
Mbam, and I haven’t even had a tracking cookie in 3 months.
Oh and I have EMET installed, just because.
I know, a little off topic, but thinking on multiply-engine antivirus/antimalware, which is the impact in the performance? Multiply-engines are the same as multiply-products running in case of performance?
Coranti was not tested…
http://www.antivirusware.com/testing/performance/
http://www.anti-malware-test.com/?q=node/167
http://www.av-comparatives.org/comparativesreviews/performance-tests
G-Data is slightly worse than the separate engines.
I don’t know how to use it practically… Settings are confuse to me. But, anyway, this will be off topic here.
If that’s to me Tech, then: Pass.
Perhaps this result, from CIS’s view, is more to do with timing. In that CIS only became VB 100% tick-thingy a few days ago and the cited test covered October-2010 to April-2011.
It was to anyone… Just trying to learn.
Did we have significant changes in CIS since the time covered by VB tests?