AV-Comparatives.org trustworthy

Post Reply
Brothers
Posts: 107
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 10:49 am

AV-Comparatives.org trustworthy

Post by Brothers » Thu Aug 01, 2013 11:09 am

Many people claim that av-comparatives are paid by antivirus vendors so that they get high detection rates and good reputation among other firms. How reliable is this site? Can it be my guide for my security solution?

User avatar
Nulander
Posts: 2136
Joined: Fri Mar 26, 2010 3:09 am

RE: AV-Comparatives.org trustworthy

Post by Nulander » Fri Aug 02, 2013 10:46 pm

I don't think. I know that there was another company that was paid by them, but not av-comparatives.

Then I don't know if things has changed, since then.

c۞g
Posts: 21225
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2009 4:02 am

RE: AV-Comparatives.org trustworthy

Post by c۞g » Sat Aug 03, 2013 7:12 am

Interesting to see their recent chart does not mention [url=http://windows.microsoft.com/mse t=_self]Microsoft Security Essentials[/url]
One of 2 free AV choices I submit samples to regularly.

Brothers
Posts: 107
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 10:49 am

RE: AV-Comparatives.org trustworthy

Post by Brothers » Mon Aug 05, 2013 2:17 pm

That's what i want to know if things changed. Well, many sites depend on av-comparatives to evaluate their security solution. Hey c۞g, Microsoft Security Essentials is mentioned. Check the full list not the ones presented on the homepage.

Guest

RE: AV-Comparatives.org trustworthy

Post by Guest » Mon Aug 05, 2013 7:47 pm

<quote user="c۞g">
Interesting to see their recent chart does not mention [url=http://windows.microsoft.com/mse t=_self]Microsoft Security Essentials[/url]
One of 2 free AV choices I submit samples to regularly.
[/quote]
You are totally right and just upgraded :)
Thanks

c۞g
Posts: 21225
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2009 4:02 am

RE: AV-Comparatives.org trustworthy

Post by c۞g » Thu Aug 08, 2013 4:49 am

<quote user="brothers">Hey c۞g, Microsoft Security Essentials is mentioned. Check the full list not the ones presented on the homepage.[/quote]

I went to the article:

Code: Select all

http://www.av-comparatives.org/dynamic-tests/
which is short and links to a chart:

Code: Select all

http://chart.av-comparatives.org/chart1.php

Microsoft would be between McAfee and Pnada; it's not.
I'm not in the mood to DL a PDF file, I figure if it's not in their graphical presentation then they must not take it seriously, though they should.

hotdoge3
Posts: 1638
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 9:14 pm

RE: AV-Comparatives.org trustworthy

Post by hotdoge3 » Sun Sep 01, 2013 5:26 am

avc_beh_201303_en.pdf Heuristic / Behaviour Test March 2013
microsoft security are not include in the award page but you can see the test come in at # 15 out of 17 Fase Alarms very few

http://www.av-comparatives.org/false-alarm-tests/

http://www.av-comparatives.org/retrospective-test/

http://forum.av-comparatives.org//index.php?page=Board&boardID=5&s=7144f5e2689f68e7275428989a4dc996dcdd71dc

Tests done by VirusBulletin
The full test details and test results (and reviews) can be found in the VB magazine (against a fee).

jcamacho
Posts: 58
Joined: Sat Aug 31, 2013 4:11 am

RE: AV-Comparatives.org trustworthy

Post by jcamacho » Sun Sep 01, 2013 2:30 pm

At this time Microsoft security essentials is not a recommended AV for those that don't get tricked by upgrade prompts and can renew subscriptions....I would suggest Avast as the best free choice at this time. Bitdefender is probably the best paid solution right now but i'd only suggest the AV not the additional feature suite etc.

I noticed microsoft security essentials performance drop in early 2012 and from what i've seen its not really improving much. Infact recently 0access has made habit of turning microsoft security essentials and windows defender against the user by using them to deny downloads done in IE and to break the built in unzip utility (compressed folders).

As far as submitting samples goes if you find fresh malware thats mostly undetected on virus total I would suggest also submitting it to F-Secure. If its something new and interesting in particular one that uses a new exploit Mikko will jump on it and let the world know FAST.

Edit: Oh right, sorry I forgot. As far as the quality of av-comparitives their detection rates can be trusted...however be advised that their false positive methods leaves much to be desired in my opinion as its really only checking popular downloads (unless they changed that recently).

Be skeptical of any AV that has significantly higher performance in the real world protection test than the file detection test. These days it usually means its using some sort of point system like...how popular is this file...is it digitally signed...etc etc this will increase false positives for users that may use programs that arent popular.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests