AV Testing

[TheIgster]

Honestly... basing your stats out of just 15 links is not a fair rating system at all

Why not?

All AV's got the same shot. The same links in the same round of tests. 15 links or 100 links, they got the same links.

These are 15 random links that anyone could come across while surfing the Internet with their choice of protection.

No AV in the test got an unfair advantage. They were all loaded with the default settings and all were allowed to update to the latest signatures.

The test is what the test is.

 

[malexous]

So whose test should we trust? You, GeorgeB and I all got different results.

 

[JonM33]

So whose test should we trust? You, GeorgeB and I all got different results.

His, because Avast won. :sarc:

 

[TheIgster]

So whose test should we trust? You, GeorgeB and I all got different results.

Well, I suppose all you can do is take all the tests with a grain of salt. Trust yourself? Dunno...Avast stopped all 30 links and did so very fast and efficiently for me. Now, with that being said, that doesn't mean Avast can stop everything and I certainly never said it could. It simply stopped the 30 random links that I had.

Personally, if you look at my setup in my signature, I don't leave it to one single program for protection. I think everyone should have a layered approach to malware protection. I feel pretty confident that what Avast doesn't stop, Malwarebytes Pro will.

 

[GeorgeB]

If you look at the AV-tests done in Dec 2009 you will see that not one product ever scored 100 %. Here is the link to the results.

AV-Test.Org Releases Real-World Malware Protection Report - Security Watch

These tests were done on new malware and the top performer still did
not detect 100%.

In both your tests, you detect 100%, there is something wrong with your testing

 

[TheIgster]

So whose test should we trust? You, GeorgeB and I all got different results.

His, because Avast won. :sarc:

C'mon now...My postings are more than fair. Let's not be silly here. This is simply for discussion purposes.

 

[TheIgster]

In both your tests, you detect 100%, there is something wrong with your testing

I've explained my testing. Obviously AV Comparatives uses more than 15 or 30 links/pieces of malware I would imagine.

Kaspersky also stopped all 15 links on the second round of testing. So it's not just Avast.

 

[smiths22]

Of course avast is pretty good. Im using it!

 

[Dinesh]

Avast in action:

 

[yowanvista]

I'm not using Avast5 because it has compatibility issues with 64-bit

 

[TheIgster]

I'm not using Avast5 because it has compatibility issues with 64-bit

What issues?

I have been running it ever since the beta on Windows 7 64-bit with no issues whatsoever.

 

[chubalz]

Just did a test similar to yours using 10 new links.

Norton 2010

- Detected 9
- Missed 1



MSE

- Detected 6
- Missed 4

A-Squared

-Detected 8
-Missed 2

Norton 360

- Detected 7
- Missed 3


AVAST 5

- Detected 5
- Missed 5


AVAST did the worst

About your testing?

Why Norton 360 and Norton 2010 have different result?

Just thinking they have the same Virus database updates right?

I mean their detection is the same?

They only have different additional protection... Correct me if im wrong?

 

[gamepoint]

go avast...im using avast for about 3 years w/o having any problems..together with threatfire

 

[yowanvista]

I'm not using Avast5 because it has compatibility issues with 64-bit

What issues?

I have been running it ever since the beta on Windows 7 64-bit with no issues whatsoever.

Boot scan does not work in x64

 

[GeorgeB]

Just did a test similar to yours using 10 new links.

Norton 2010

- Detected 9
- Missed 1



MSE

- Detected 6
- Missed 4

A-Squared

-Detected 8
-Missed 2

Norton 360

- Detected 7
- Missed 3


AVAST 5

- Detected 5
- Missed 5


AVAST did the worst

About your testing?

Why Norton 360 and Norton 2010 have different result?

Just thinking they have the same Virus database updates right?

I mean their detection is the same?

They only have different additional protection... Correct me if im wrong?

NIS 2010 has SONAR, the version of 360 I have does not have it. SONAR caught the ones 360 missed.

 

[jav]

NIS 2010 has SONAR, the version of 360 I have does not have it. SONAR caught the ones 360 missed.

a little more detail:

Norton 360v4 has SONAR...
Norton 360v3 doesn't

 

[GeorgeB]

NIS 2010 has SONAR, the version of 360 I have does not have it. SONAR caught the ones 360 missed.

a little more detail:

Norton 360v4 has SONAR...
Norton 360v3 doesn't

Version 3

 

[TheIgster]

I'm not using Avast5 because it has compatibility issues with 64-bit

What issues?

I have been running it ever since the beta on Windows 7 64-bit with no issues whatsoever.

Boot scan does not work in x64

Well, sure sounded like there was some major issues and you couldn't run it or something based on your post.

The boot scan feature is not in the 64-bit version as stated right in the software. Avast claims they will have it in a future version due out soon. Not really concerned about that. That's why I have layered defense as well as other scanners like Hitman Pro to scan to see if there are any issues for free.

 

[chubalz]

Its really funny.

Avast Free compared to Paid Norton Internet Security

Did you try Avast Internet Security? I mean did you try sandbox?

I do hope norton has sandbox?

100% of your system is safe using sandbox even new malware.

AV's cant detect new malwares it need to update your AV's right?

Sandbox dont need to update. Even latest malware cant harm your system.

If Norton has sandbox then i would agree norton is the safest AV's or Internet Security of all.

 

[malexous]

Why even pay for Avast! Internet Security? Use Avast! Free (or seeing as it gets mentioned so much on these forums, MSE) with Sandboxie.