AV-Test.org unveils latest results

[malexous]

Trend 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.
...

Virus Bulletin : News - AV-Test.org unveils latest results

 

[whs]

This should also be noted.

Symantec's Norton achieving the highest overall score across the three categories

 

[mikedl]

It also should be noted the latest test results (certifications) are for XP.

 

[whs]

It also should be noted the latest test results (certifications) are for XP.

That puts even more importance on the AV program.

 

[SolarWind]

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

 

[Phone Man]

It also should be noted the latest test results (certifications) are for XP.

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

 

[SolarWind]

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.

 

[Tepid]

I will also take avcomparitives tests over AV-Test for the simple fact of the following....

AV-Test.org

National and international magazines as well as all renowned vendors of security software are counted among our business partners

av-comparatives.org

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.

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?

If I am wrong, verifiable corrections are welcome.

 

[Phone Man]

Well the detection rate for MS security essentials is greater in windows 7 than it is for XP as an example.

Do you have a link to that information or figures to back up that statement?

Jim

 

[Phone Man]

I will also take avcomparitives tests over AV-Test for the simple fact of the following....

AV-Test.org

National and international magazines as well as all renowned vendors of security software are counted among our business partners

av-comparatives.org

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.

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?

If I am wrong, verifiable corrections are welcome.

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

 

[malexous]

essentials has a good detection rate

What do you base that on?

Edit: Seems I haven't been paying attention to the tests of MSE over the last year.

 

[SolarWind]

essentials has a good detection rate

What do you base that on?

There are numerous reports and gradings for MSE running on a windows 7 platform. AV-Test.org being one of them. It has a solid detection rate.

 

[Phone Man]

essentials has a good detection rate

What do you base that on?

There are numerous reports and gradings for MSE running on a windows 7 platform. AV-Test.org being one of them. It has a solid detection rate.

AV-Test.org · Tests of Anti-Virus- and Security-Software

I just noticed that AV-Test.org used Win 7 in the 2qtr and XP in the 3qtr. MSE did better in the Win 7 test but still not at the top. Norton did almost the same on both XP and Win 7 and was at the top. The test was on MSE 1.0 in both tests so hopefully they will do MSE 2.0 in the future. Also under Win 7 they used NIS 2010 and under XP they used the newer NIS 2011 with almost identical results. None are 100% so just choose what you like out of the top tier and you should be fine.

Jim

 

[Colonel Travis]

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

At the big Windows New Efficiency thing last year, they gave out NIS 2010 with a free one-year subscription. Up to that point I'd thought Norton was poison, because it was, but I thought I'd try it out, what the heck. It ended up being terrific, so I got 2011 after the high ratings came in on that one. Norton has dramatically changed. Highly recommend NIS 2011.

 

[CreepinJesus]

It also should be noted the latest test results (certifications) are for XP.

Indeed, and that the Windows 7 tests from Q2 show MSE passing and Trend Micro failing - the opposite to XP.