New
#1
This should also be noted.
Symantec's Norton achieving the highest overall score across the three categories
AV-Test.org unveils latest results
-
-
New #2
It also should be noted the latest test results (certifications) are for XP.
-
-
New #4
AV-Test Product Review and Certification Report - 2010/Q3
During the 3rd quarter of 2010 we have tested 19 security products in the areas protection, repair and usability. The "Protection" covers static and dynamic malware detection, including real-world 0-Day attack testing. In case of "Repair", we check the system disinfection and rootkit removal in detail. The "Usability" testing includes the system slow-down caused by the tools and the number of false positives. A product has to reach at least 12 points total in order to receive a certification. 13 products have fulfilled our requirements and received an AV-Test certificate. The test reports can be found here:
AV-Test.org · Tests of Anti-Virus- and Security-Software
-
New #5
Why would that make a difference? If the AV misses something under XP why would it catch it under Win 7. Is there some magic in Win 7 that make AV programs catch more bad things?
The AV programs are constantly changing to keep up with the bad guys and what worked best last year may not do as good this year.
Jim
-
New #6
Well the detection rate for MS security essentials is greater in windows 7 than it is for XP as an example. Most likely because certain malicious code is ineffective with the enhanced counter measures and or system changes in 7.
Win 7 has enhanced/different security implementations than Win XP, there's ASLR, better DEP, better SEH protection, better heap protection, less critical vulnerabilities to take advantage of. A virus that is written on an XP platform may not function on 7 (it would need quality testing)
So there will be less wild code at the moment and essentials has a good detection rate - maybe I'll be saying something else in a year or so. It's always a game of catch up.
-
New #7
I will also take avcomparitives tests over AV-Test for the simple fact of the following....
AV-Test.org
av-comparatives.orgNational and international magazines as well as all renowned vendors of security software are counted among our business partners
It is my understanding that av-comparatives.org does not partner with any vendor and they do not get paid for their results and/or testing. Can the same be said for AV-Test?Qualified Candidates: At AV-Comparatives we limit the number of participants in our tests to about sixteen to twenty vendors and where possible we include only good and reliable products/vendors. Due to this, we have devised various requirements in order to take part, which also aids us identifying and filtering out rogue anti-virus vendors.
If I am wrong, verifiable corrections are welcome.
-
New #8
-
New #9
Both of these organizations use Win XP as their test bed. Probably since XP is still the most used Windows platform and may also have more specific malware aimed at them. Also since 2008 av-comparatives.org also charges a fee to the AV vendors for their services. Both seem to be reputable companies and if there were any problems I don't believe the AV vendors would continue to participate. As both of these organizations continue to test and post their results, all we can do is look them over and try and make a good decision. I think any of the top AVs will do a good job and a lot depends on how you like using them. I had tried NIS 2009 but did not like the interface and had trouble understanding the options. I tried MSE which has no options but it also gave me errors when it tried to update. I then tried Avast! which I liked but am now trying NIS 2011 which I have a better understanding of the interface and options. It also has some newer features that I like.
Jim
AV-Test.org unveils latest results
Posted: 08 Nov 2010
Virus Bulletin : News - AV-Test.org unveils latest resultsTrend Micro achieves pass; Microsoft and McAfee fail to reach certification standards.
Independent testing body AV-Test.org has released its latest set of quarterly test results, reporting on the performance of 19 products in its multi-layer certification scheme. The reports show some major players not reaching the required grade, with McAfee's Internet Security solution missing out on certification for the second quarter running, while Microsoft's free-for-home-use Security Essentials was also denied certification. Trend Micro, having put in a poor showing in the previous test, stepped up a gear to achieve its first certification under the scheme launched earlier this year.
...
Quote
Related Discussions