Avast WEBforum

Other => General Topics => Topic started by: bob3160 on April 11, 2013, 05:28:39 PM

Title: AV Comparatives for March 2013
Post by: bob3160 on April 11, 2013, 05:28:39 PM
http://www.av-comparatives.org/comparativesreviews/dynamic-tests (http://www.av-comparatives.org/comparativesreviews/dynamic-tests)
Title: Re: AV Comparatives for March 2013
Post by: true indian on April 12, 2013, 09:05:49 AM
I think people should be looking at this: http://chart.av-comparatives.org/chart1.php

Avast did excellent..it missed nothing and now the only thing we need to work on is the user dependent 1.4% factor and besides that if you actually know how to use and answer avast alerts then it isnt a huge deal really and Me thinks we did better than the paid products in terms of compromised ratio I guess.  ;D
Title: Re: AV Comparatives for March 2013
Post by: SpeedyPC on April 12, 2013, 09:29:31 AM
Something doesn't make any sense at all really, how on earth could Eemsisoft, f-secure, G data, Kaspersky and Qihoo 360 get 100%. I mean that is completely bullsh#t no AV software on earth cannot be 100% perfect come on get bloody real, I can smell a dead rotten cheese and garlic about 500m away from my nose ;D ::) before Sylvester get me ;D ;D
Title: Re: AV Comparatives for March 2013
Post by: mchain on April 12, 2013, 10:53:11 AM
I think people should be looking at this: http://chart.av-comparatives.org/chart1.php

Avast did excellent..it missed nothing and now the only thing we need to work on is the user dependent 1.4% factor and besides that if you actually know how to use and answer avast alerts then it isnt a huge deal really and Me thinks we did better than the paid products in terms of compromised ratio I guess.  ;D
Baseline blockage in the graph was 90% (and) that was solely provided by an up-to-date Windows 7 system. 

If you look, AhnLabs provided no additional protection.  Also, the pdf link provided for March 2013 (page 3) does qualify the findings by stating that a/v programs that rated 100% in this test may not do so in the future.
Title: Re: AV Comparatives for March 2013
Post by: bob3160 on April 12, 2013, 12:45:14 PM
Something doesn't make any sense at all really, how on earth could Eemsisoft, f-secure, G data, Kaspersky and Qihoo 360 get 100%. I mean that is completely bullsh#t no AV software on earth cannot be 100% perfect come on get bloody real, I can smell a dead rotten cheese and garlic about 500m away from my nose ;D ::) before Sylvester get me ;D ;D
It makes sense when you read the whole report. :)
Title: Re: AV Comparatives for March 2013
Post by: Charyb-0 on April 12, 2013, 12:55:22 PM
Baseline blockage in the graph was 90% (and) that was solely provided by an up-to-date Windows 7 system. 

If you look, AhnLabs provided no additional protection.  Also, the pdf link provided for March 2013 (page 3) does qualify the findings by stating that a/v programs that rated 100% in this test may not do so in the future.

The 90.3% baseline protection was provided by MSE in Windows 7 and Windows Defender in Windows 8.
Title: Re: AV Comparatives for March 2013
Post by: bob3160 on April 12, 2013, 01:04:10 PM
Baseline blockage in the graph was 90% (and) that was solely provided by an up-to-date Windows 7 system. 

If you look, AhnLabs provided no additional protection.  Also, the pdf link provided for March 2013 (page 3) does qualify the findings by stating that a/v programs that rated 100% in this test may not do so in the future.

The 90.3% baseline protection was provided by MSE in Windows 7 and Windows Defender in Windows 8.
The 90.3% baseline protection was provided by MSE in Windows 7 and Windows Defender in Windows 8. (Not competing)
To me these figures are useless since they where supplied by the vendor.
Title: Re: AV Comparatives for March 2013
Post by: Charyb-0 on April 12, 2013, 01:09:18 PM
The 90.3% baseline protection was provided by MSE in Windows 7 and Windows Defender in Windows 8. (Not competing)
To me these figures are useless since they where supplied by the vendor.

MSE didn't compete in the test but was tested. Where does it state that these numbers were provided by the vendor?
Title: Re: AV Comparatives for March 2013
Post by: bob3160 on April 12, 2013, 01:16:46 PM
MSE didn't compete in the test but was tested. Where does it state that these numbers were provided by the vendor?
My Misread. sorry.  :'(
Title: Re: AV Comparatives for March 2013
Post by: Arnold72 on April 12, 2013, 07:28:41 PM
Something doesn't make any sense at all really, how on earth could Eemsisoft, f-secure, G data, Kaspersky and Qihoo 360 get 100%. I mean that is completely bullsh#t no AV software on earth cannot be 100% perfect come on get bloody real, I can smell a dead rotten cheese and garlic about 500m away from my nose ;D ::) before Sylvester get me ;D ;D

100% in that single test is quite within the realms of possibility.100% in the real world might be a whole different story of course.
Title: Re: AV Comparatives for March 2013
Post by: Chris Thomas on April 12, 2013, 11:02:54 PM
Bitdefender lost their 100% rank, that is surprising  ;D F-Secure has been making some improvement over some time now. Yes Avast has got 100% this time :) Glad for Avast
Title: Re: AV Comparatives for March 2013
Post by: Para-Noid on April 13, 2013, 12:43:33 AM
I might be a bit daft but what does "user dependent" mean?  ???
Title: Re: AV Comparatives for March 2013
Post by: !Donovan on April 13, 2013, 01:57:16 AM
The virus was detected but user action was required, possibly?

~!Donovan
Title: Re: AV Comparatives for March 2013
Post by: true indian on April 14, 2013, 05:26:52 AM
According to Vlk's reply on wilders,they are most likely inconclusive sandbox analysis pop up that gives option to close and continue execution.  :)