March 22nd, 2010, 11:55 PM
March 23rd, 2010, 12:56 AM
That review contradicts quite a few others I've seen. Norton gets 98%? I'd love to know who ran this test. Kaspersky only three stars? Very suspicious to me. Sounds like a paid review.
March 23rd, 2010, 04:47 AM
Most reviews these days have "Influence" from vendors.. That's exactly why i usually take them as a grain of salt.
about the bitdefender good 1 Johnno.
March 23rd, 2010, 01:54 PM
Dissapointed as I cannot see Panda listed :/
The world is a dangerous place to live; not because of the people who are evil, but because of the people who don't do anything about it.
March 23rd, 2010, 03:41 PM
Hmmm, yes, I tend to be somewhat wary of "reviews" as they do have a tendency to be subjective rather than scientific, even if there is no "commercial influence" involved.
In security software there really isn't a level playing field as they all tend to work slightly differently. Those that have a greater reliance on matching to a pattern or signature file seem to do better in these sort of tests.
From what I can see, a failing in this review is that they only looked at scanning detection. A more comprehensive test would have been to take the apparently missed malware and try to open the file, to see if it really could infect the system?
A product that relies more heavily on behavioral detection and sandboxing may not have signatures for malwares that are rapidly mutating or being updated.
In the past I have also noticed that some AVs won't spot malware that is in an unexecutable form, but as soon as you rename the file to a .exe or whatever, it cuts in immediately.
Another thing is: how did they classify files that were listed as "suspicious"?
As soon as I see categories like "value for money" and "ease of use" I become very sceptical.................. what would you say was the best value for money: a $120 dollar product that let you get infected or a $200 one that didn't?
I do remember reading an article in a consumer magazine where they had conducted a somewhat more scientific test:
Basically they got some outfit to write them a few thousand "new" malwares that were basically variants or obfuscations of stuff commonly found in the Wild. They then did a scanning and run test. As I recall the best results were well below 70%.
Another criticism I have of this review is that they did not include commercial versions of the "free" products...............I would have thought that a better comparison of like with like?
They may not have given permission. Several companies won't take part in these sort of tests if they don't think the playing field will be level
Disappointed as I cannot see Panda listed :/
Last edited by nihil; March 23rd, 2010 at 03:44 PM.
March 23rd, 2010, 06:05 PM
I agree with that also. I don't wanna hear about "bang for the buck". Tell me which one works the best, I'll worry about the price myself.
March 24th, 2010, 08:26 AM
yeah I was thinking of starting a thread about MSE (microsofts security essentials) asking who here has tried it and if they had any personal comparisons.
when it first came out I read some very good reviews/tests on it and one of the guys at work said it played very well on a very old xp box that had very little memory in it. And being that I sometimes fix peoples boxes and since most of them don't want to pay for an AV, I'll put antivir or avast on there (AVG is never an option, imo.. and clam AV.. yuk..) ... so I was thinking that if MSE was halfway decent, at least I'd have another option.
now I used to have a collection of malware samples that I'd been saving up for tests, it was near 2 gig's worth.. but alas, that hdd bit the bullet .. hdd regenerator and spinrite couldn't get it going. and where I put the dvd of those files, I don't know.. might have left it in someones dvd drive. *cries* .. so hard to say personally how well MSE is doing.
I've installed it on 3 boxes, and on one of the boxes, it would hang when it got to finding something. on a box that a friend was fxing , he said he ran it and MSE didn't find the infection (a rogue AV.. like antivirus 2010) , and that malwarebytes picked up and removed it lickity split. so I'm starting to have my doubts.
to me, the two best AV's have always been NOD32 and kaspersky.. kaspersky being my favorite in leading edge defifntions/removal of the baddies and NOD having an almost equal detection rate but with a faster scan time. In the last year or so tho.. since I didn't want to pay for renewal, on my 2 laptops and one desktop,(and on my kids laptops) I've been running with no AV.. I'll just use malwarebytes, hijackthis, kaspersky's AVP tool if something comes up.. if it's something a little bit more intense, combofix will get thrown at it..
so... does anyone here "do MSE" ? care to share ups and downs ?
and for grins and giggles.. anyone ever try that chinese cloud AV called "rising" ?
March 24th, 2010, 03:49 PM
March 24th, 2010, 03:54 PM
I've suspended my use of Kaspersky to give it a test run.
March 24th, 2010, 03:57 PM
That's the spirit Joe.
make sure you go through it's options and play with the settings. If you want some "Samples" to test it's detection then let me know, i'll hook you up...
By E5C4P3 in forum AntiOnline's General Chit Chat
Last Post: January 17th, 2008, 12:40 AM
By tekno in forum Microsoft Security Discussions
Last Post: October 15th, 2003, 08:51 AM
By MrLinus in forum The Security Tutorials Forum
Last Post: October 11th, 2003, 04:22 AM
By xmaddness in forum Miscellaneous Security Discussions
Last Post: October 2nd, 2002, 10:32 PM
By xmaddness in forum Miscellaneous Security Discussions
Last Post: May 29th, 2002, 10:27 PM