alright, sounds promising, how do you log, simple +/- type system or ranking or just notes? because I would imagine some might have results that don't fall into eather catagory 100% (say any infection gets in and the a/v takes out the bulk of it but leaves some minor relics? or whatever version of this type situation applies to the malware ate the site you visit for your test.
Have you tryed one with no protection as a standard?
Mike
I log how many threats have been thrown at the AV during the test
EX:
threats downloaded/executed / threats successfully blocked
I also test the product's email protection, look and see if its behavior blocker/detection comes into play at all (if it has any), and also watch for firewall alerts if the product has one.
Then in the end, I run MBAM, Hitman Pro, and maybe a few others to see how well the AV kept the machine clean. The nice thing is, when it gets to "junked up" I wipe and start over. It's nice to have the flexibility and capability to do these tests! :)
sounds good. the control? have you tryed one?
and finally (I don't know what your reason or end game is for doing the tests) but how many do you think you'll need to run ( are you running each a/v more than once?)
thats the last Q
Explain what you mean by control. My reasoning behind these tests is to see what's good, effective, and worth buying pretty much along with posting, and viewing forums out there on these products. It also allows me to know what to recommend to people ask me what's good out there.
like I had asked before, (a control/standard is) a run with no protection to establish a baseline for all products to be compared to.
who knows what is really going on -even if the a/v-s/w says (blocked malware xyz) it may have tried to block it uneffectively, but the malware wasn't able to infect your system for some other unpredictable reason, so the log interprets that as a block. any number of weird unaccounted for factors could affect the infection, corrupted during attack attempt, etc. producing meaningless data - & conclusions. the standard removes that error factor and produces meaningful data. May be significant or not at all, but a test should have a standard.
Mike
I am really wondering what the use of these "pro and con" discussions on products is. About products in general, not just here. And i do NOT want to offend and/or accuse but only want to point to the link below and then ask "What can you still trust?".
Just have a look at:
BBC News - Fake forum comments are 'eroding' trust in the web
As a consumer I make it a habit to peruse various forums and/or websites before deciding on which product might be best for me.
Just as an example, not too long ago I needed to buy new tires. Not being a tire "expert" I began researching what others had to say about Michelin, Goodyear, Firestone, etc. Then I began researching what others had to say about tires for my specific make and model of truck and the kinds of weather conditions, roads, loads, etc that I'd be likely to encounter. Took all the discussions with a grain of salt, made my decision, and after about 18,000 miles I'm very happy with the decision I made.
I guess it all boils down to whether or not a person enjoys making guesses vs. informed decisions. I've always felt the odds were in my favor to make the right decision by weighing the pros and cons.
Hi FranzB!
I'm sure that your linked article is interesting, but for the same reasons that your message and the title of the link speak of I tend not to follow links from many unknown sources these days. Actually, I'm kidding a bit, esp. since I'm familiar with BBC.co.uk, but even so, once someone discovers a website's exploitable cracks and holes, they could easily place malware into any site. I can't imagine that there would any other second move but too mass spread the link in forums, emails, social networks, and so forth to get as many people to enter such a trusted site. Although I'm certain your link is fine, I just point it out as being part of my browsing habits.
I am sure any online forum, as well as...well the entire internet, is quite riddled with "fake members" as well as members that occasionally purposely or accidentally provide false info usually to advance their own agenda. I haven't seen it really, esp. not here at SF! But then I guess I really wouldn't see it by virtue of its intention to deceive. Personally, I picture the monitor as a entryway with "slightly altered" inscription from Dante's Inferno, "Abandon TRUST, all ye who enter!" It's sad, scary but an inevitable reality that there may be false info online, and while checking multiple sources is one counter-action, it is made less effective by the concept of wide spread illegal plagiarism as well as legal copying of so-called copylefted material (CC, OSI, etc) on the web.
So what is anything worth from an information standpoint? (hardly limited to the web) IMHO, you can only figure that out for yourself, I read something, judge the source, compare to other sources, and if its import enough to be accurate, check it out personally, firsthand!
Don't know how else to answer such a question as it is a daily, dynamic subject, for me anyway.
But, Good Times!
and Easy Peasy Lemon Squeezy!
Me
Hi Ruby etc...
Unfortunately the link i gave above was changed automatically from the one i typed in, viz. ---.bbc.co.uk....etc.
which would have been more trustworthy.
I agree with the rest you said but would also like call your attention to a posting of a certain rubyrubyroo on the thread "what's the best antivirus?" just a few minutes ago. That was a good remark. Read it!
Cheers.............
Last edited by FranzB; 30 Nov 2011 at 10:27. Reason: typing errors
Got you Mike I can't tell whether I upset you or not re my comments on AVG - just that I had the paid AVG as the CA that came with the machine was a concrete parachute back in 2004-2006 and it was good and then it went walkabout the support was crap and the constant reminders drove me mad - admittedly I wasn't that savvy at all then - not that I am now but enough to see that it was not the full quid compared to what I have been using since and now.@Codyw - I believe (at least in past versions of trend, there is a built in mechanism (i don't remember a button, a checkbox somewhere?) that allows automatic sending of the nicely packaged and encrypted sample to the lab for analysis (with reply). it is available when the detection occurs.
And maybe I missed a page or two, but how exactly are you testing your test computer once its set-up and ready?
@ICit2lol - Hey now, AVG had it's heyday, can't remember how many years it's been, 5 maybe, it was pretty much top dog in my research (and I'm not talking PC mags, but big-boy grownup tests with controls and statistical significance (via: chi square tests) and across-the-board it detected with the highest efficacy of any (I believe at the time it was about one of the only ones that even detected like 4 out of the 5 tested key-loggers, whereas maybe 1-2 other apps found 1 each.... (for instance) Then I installed it for years on clients computers and dropped my guard for 4 years or so and went back to the stats only to find the bottom fell out at some point (maybe day 2 maybe the day before I reexamined it ? who knows?) But spot-on crap today! I call it "watchware", because it basically watches the infection enter, logs it, and reports it (even when set to del or encrypt or whatever) wonderful, only wish i could boot up to READ THE LOG!but, hey, you live, you learn.
Mike...out
So if I did I do offer my apologies to you and I couldn't agree more the tests that mags put out - if one believed then we would all be on Snorton!! I shall have to look up some testing techniques as at the moment I only go on what I see in the reports on the site GUI and from sites like AV Comparatives and matousec.
At the moment I am like cody - testing on an older machine - Dell XP - Comodo in particular which seems to come close to Kaspersky 2012 in terms of settings though I have yet to find a feature like KIS's online banking which is the best thing since sliced bread IMHO.
Have run Avira and Avast too as trials and they are also quite effective even though I do not have any sophisticated ways of testing like the pro's.
Anyway I think each to his own and as I have said before it really comes down to what the individual does with his system.
After all if one owns a car and drives it down the wrong side of the road just putting it to pot luck that one doesn't hit something then that would amount to utter foolishness eh? In my mind it s all down to the responsibility of the individual, and if one isn't sure - ask first.
Having said that it's sad that there are those who wrongly, rightly, or irresponsibly advise such individuals who then end up in a mess.
John
Quote
