Latest AV-Comparatives antivirus test.

AV-Comparatives have (finally) published their lastest antivirus test.

This pro-active on demand test is a follow up on the on-demand test that was done late february.
In this new test most well-known programs were tested without any recent signature updates.
While the AV programs did not receive any updates, new malware was collected and those samples were used to see how well the (heuristic) detection (and code emulation) worked.

The winner in this test is the paid-for AV TrustPort.
It combines AVG and BitDefender scan engines and in this particular test, these engines performed best regarding the detection percentage and the number of false positives; 63% detection rate and 9 FP's

As usual I'll only show the results of the AV's that have a free version.

Avira 53% - 11
Avast 29% - 11
AVG 34% - 10
MSE 59% - 3

note; Except for Avast and MSE, the scores of Avira and AVG are for the paid versions.

So, what does this test mean for NBR users?
Well, first of all it's important to understand that only, I repeat only the detection part of these AV programs has been tested.
These programs have a lot more than just detection, most of them also have on-execution detection or a behavioural blocker integrated.
So, if you would (accidentally) download malware, it might not be detected immediately after the download but if you would actually execute the file, only then the other on-execution scan engine (or behavioural blocker) would step up and (probably) kill the malware.

So, it's real important to understand that only a part of the AV-technology in the different programs was tested. Not the complete AV product.

The scores do show which program has the best detection and this is of course a major part of any AV.
You don't need to change your AV immediately because of these test results but it does give an indication of which ones are best at detection of new malware without any signature updates.
It doesn't mean for instance that Avast is bad all of a sudden but it does mean that Avast relies more on signature updates and AV-technology other than mere detection than it's peers.

AV-Comparatives is also going to test all these programs dynamically/on-execution.
Then we will see how the other different AV-technologies that the different companies have implemented, work out.

To see how Norton, Kaspersky or Eset have scored and for much more detailed info on this test, please read the full report yourself at their site; www.av-comparatives.org.
Cheers.

 

Nice to see MSSE doing well. Strengthens my trust in it.

 

Yes, if MSE didn't care about legality of Windows installed, I'd use it too. But it cares and creates headache.

 

What kind of headaches?

 

For example that it refuses to install if it reports Windows as non-genuine and constantly saying the Os is at risk.
MS had issues in the past with genuine validation reporting genuine Os installs as not genuine, so it's not surprising some would be skeptical (although I use MSE without issues and have put it on other peoples systems who haven't been bugged with problems).

On topic ... it's interesting to note that MSE seems to have highest detection rate (which is improved) and lowest fp among the free ones.

 

I used to use the Comodo Suite (AV, FW, D+) til something crapped out in one of the recent versions. Regardless of detection rate or false positives, there's not much that can get through FW, sandbox, HIPS, and the AV together. HIPS is truly a pain in the for a couple days, but it's the toughest security suite I've used thus far.

I'm presently using MSE and Win7 FW atm, til a more stable CIS comes out.

 

Avira <3...

 

It makes me feel like I want to use back the Avira Antivir Personal 9 again. I saw Avira Antivir Personal 9 have low false positive in the AV Comparatives. It's true that it's not so nagging now a day?
I don't like MSSE 1 point only because it causes my Warcraft III TFT to load slower. LOL.

 

Good to see that MSE is only improving. It's become my go-to AV app for my own system and my recommendations. That said, 63% is the highest detection rate? That's a bit frightening, no?

 

Avira is my favorite as well!

As far as the nag screen, I have no idea if anythings changed, since I just edited permissions for the file so it can't execute anyways lol.

 

I never found Avira to be "so nagging" so I've never left. It still works best for me out of all the free AVs so I don't see myself switching anytime soon.

 

It's quite simple to disable the Avira "nag screen" if it bothers you - see this link for instructions.

 

I know how to disable the NAG SCREEN. I mean is the Avira still have very high false positive? It detects most cracks/hacks/keygens(LOL) as dangerous objects. Sad.

 

I'm not sure just how risky or dangerous your computer usage is, but I have not had a false positive from Avira in over a year on any of my seven computers.

 

I experienced a lot of fp's with Avira.
MSE is much less annoying from install, and has the lowest fp's in contrast to Avira and Avast, which is one of the reasons I stick with it.
I haven't experienced any issues even when checking/using cracks for testing purposes.

Avira is much more sensitive to these things and much more prohibitive in terms of cracks (which is to a level justifiable because they want to prevent illegal use of software ... although, that's also slightly going into territory of prohibiting what one can do with a personal computer or not - from a certian POV).