Jump to content
M.Richter

Free Av Comparison

Recommended Posts

See

 

 

(1 of 3 videos) ( the other two links i cannot post, because i get allways the failure message "Sorry, but you have posted more media files than you are allowed to" )

 

Malware Pack has 2365 Malware

 

Avira : 90%

 

Avast : 85,3%

 

AVG : 85,3%

 

Comodo : 93%

Immunet : 91,7% ??? ( In immunet test is a mistake! Immunet has found 2258 infected files so 2365-2258=107 not 196. You can check folder once again, The ammount of files is 107 ( time 7:10)!!! So it gives 95,47% :D )

 

MSE : 76,1%

 

Panda Cloud : 91%

 

PC Tools : 0%

 

( Kingsoft : 42,2% (was not shown in the Video, but Languy has written, that Kingsoft left over 1,000 malware undetected on the system) )

 

(----> proactiv Test, all failed, but Comodo Pass, because HIPS)

 

I think thats a good result for Immunet ;)

 

regards

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yea! I saw these videos and this shows that Immunet is on the right path. Maybe a congratz is in place? :D

 

PC Tools!!! Maybe its time they take this product off the market? 0%!!!! CMON!

 

/W

 

PS! Please add the submit files (suspicious and false positives)via right click or GUI A.S.A.P please.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

See

 

 

(1 of 3 videos) ( the other two links i cannot post, because i get allways the failure message "Sorry, but you have posted more media files than you are allowed to" )

 

Malware Pack has 2365 Malware

 

Avira : 90%

 

Avast : 85,3%

 

AVG : 85,3%

 

Comodo : 93%

Immunet : 91,7% ??? ( In immunet test is a mistake! Immunet has found 2258 infected files so 2365-2258=107 not 196. You can check folder once again, The ammount of files is 107 ( time 7:10)!!! So it gives 95,47% :D )

 

MSE : 76,1%

 

Panda Cloud : 91%

 

PC Tools : 0%

 

( Kingsoft : 42,2% (was not shown in the Video, but Languy has written, that Kingsoft left over 1,000 malware undetected on the system) )

 

(----> proactiv Test, all failed, but Comodo Pass, because HIPS)

 

I think thats a good result for Immunet ;)

 

regards

 

I think what is happening relative to the directory is that we queue removal of threats. That queue is outside of the scanning process so it does not block it. This means that if we detect 2300+ threats that the product will then methodically start removing them and will likely still be doing so well after the scan stops because the two are not related. Removing a threat typically takes longer than detecting it hence that process taking longer to complete.

 

Best,

al

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

(----> proactiv Test, all failed, but Comodo Pass, because HIPS)

AFAIK Languy is a Mod or Admin for Comodo's forum. Ergo, I am ambivalent with regard to his objectivity and competence as a tester, & I have some doubts concerning both the size & objectivity of his samples.

 

IMO, it was absurd for Languy to test a suite (Comodo) against pure AVs. Comodo is a security suite composed of firewall+AV+HIPS+sandbox. Strip Comodo down to ONLY its antivirus component and it will no longer be a top-tier proactive solution. I partly base this comment on those rare time when Comodo has submitted itself to professional testing. For instance, take a look at Virus Bulletin (VB) RAP test chart. RAP measures antivirus apps as to their reactive and proactive detection abilities when pitted against the most recent malware that has emerged around the world. As you will note from the results chart posted by VB, Comodo AV finished far back in the pack, with just over 60% reactive detection & less than 55% proactive detection. Most other AVs finished well above 90% reactive & 70% or better proactive.

 

For another one of those rare times when Comodo has actually submitted itself to professional testing, take a look at Virus Bulletin's (VB) results for Apr - Oct 2010. Take notice that Comodo Antivirus (not the suite) abstained from VB tests in Feb, Apr, June, & Aug 2010. Then, when Comodo evidently decided to participate in VB's Oct 2010 test, Comodo failed.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

Bottom line:

The measure of a test's validity does not reside in whether or not someone agrees or disagrees with the results. Neither does a test's validity reside in its entertainment value as a video drama. To the contrary, the real validity of any given test resides in the professionalism & competence of the tester, the statistical significance & objectivity of the malware database, and (importantly) the tester's absolute independence from any & all of the software he is reporting on. IMO, the amateur video skits on Youtube might be fun to watch at times, but they have scant value for assessing the relative strengths & weaknesses of security software.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

AFAIK Languy is a Mod or Admin for Comodo's forum. Ergo, I am ambivalent with regard to his objectivity and competence as a tester, & I have some doubts concerning both the size & objectivity of his samples.

 

IMO, it was absurd for Languy to test a suite (Comodo) against pure AVs. Comodo is a security suite composed of firewall+AV+HIPS+sandbox. Strip Comodo down to ONLY its antivirus component and it will no longer be a top-tier proactive solution.

 

i disagree with you in this matter. CIS was made to be a suite that was build to work as you said (FW+AV+HIPS) but with the introduction of the sandbox, it allowed the users to chose the FW or the AV

our both... HIPS is an essential part of the software... in stock setting the heurs i think it came in low sets... stripping if of the sandbox and HIPS and you get some thing like Immunet free (no rootkit our of line protection ) with a reduced community... what makes immunet so strong is the numbers of the community.... like sonar in nortons products... if you take those out what you get? AV protection that existed in the 90s?? signatures based only...

 

i'm not a fan boy (CIS kills my game collection, so i use immunet free)

 

besides the test was done using only the AV, he didn't install the FW...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

AFAIK Languy is a Mod or Admin for Comodo's forum. Ergo, I am ambivalent with regard to his objectivity and competence as a tester, & I have some doubts concerning both the size & objectivity of his samples.

 

I do not know the tester, so I have no comment there. I'm obviously still pleased with the results :>

 

As for professionalism and testing I think the standards are *a lot* lower than you might expect. The guys doing this testing rarely, if ever, apply any scientific rigor to their testing. Some of the better test houses (and by better I mean more widely read) now test against live malware sites (as do youtube viewers) with their own crawlers etc. which I do think is a great improvement. However, as it stands, testing real world efficacy is very, very difficult and frankly expensive from both a time consumption and resource perspective. My opinion is that youtube reviewers and large test houses have very little water separating them, say a puddle when I think it should be the Gulf of Mexico. ATMSO may help but frankly seems to have done little of any value that I can discern.

 

al

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Danke schön Mattias für die You Tube Video!:D

Congratulation Immunet, you scored just fine, as expected!!:o

 

Cheers,

sweidre

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:D hehe, bitte schön sweidre, gutes deutsch hast du drauf ;)

 

Danke sehr, Matthias! Als eines kleines Kind, war Deutsch die zweite fremder Sprache in der Schwedische Schule gelernt, aber leider nicht jeden Tag benutzt!

Gut, das Du die informative Video gefunden hast und sie hier plaziert hast!:)

Tschüss,

sweidre

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Testing circus is hopeless because how to expect maker of gold awarded product X to complain about test or test environment. You only see that when result is less flattering. Besides that content fuels much talk on forums and blogs :)

 

Real world test does not change much other than give more credibility to test just because "Real" is used, as opposed to all the unreal tests :) How to define real? Has already been shown to be up for manipulation and interpretation, remember the MS sponsored tests which showed IE8 blocks 80%+ of all malware from social websites? Whole point of test was "Real". Well may be some belive such numbers, heh.

 

AV-Compartives use XP SP3 out of the box with no patches - and IE7. Is that real? Does real not include at least standard setup as advised from Microsoft? Like Vista or 7, UAC + all updates. Here real means conditions making AV work at max., so we can get some numbers for our graphs, but that is not clear.

 

And points to Immunet for almost complaining about test business!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...