AV-Comparatives File Detection Test - September 2013

[Matsuda]

File Detection Tests

Aims of the test and target audience The File Detection Test assesses the ability of antivirus programs to detect malicious files on a system. Whilst the test only assesses one antimalware feature of the programs, this feature is important for a security solution. This is because it can identify malware attacks from sources other than the Internet, and detect malicious files already present on the system
.

Test Procedure

We install each antivirus program on its own physical PC, and update the signatures. The malware sample files are then scanned using the program’s standard scanning procedure, and the number of detections is recorded. The PCs remain connected to the Internet during the test, meaning that the security programs can use any cloud features provided by their manufacturers.

Typically, more than 100,000 malware samples are used for the test. These are prevalent malicious files of all types that have been recently collected, i.e. within a period of a few weeks or months before the test is performed.

To ensure that the tested programs do not simply identify all unknown files as malware, a false-positive test is also conducted for every File Detection Test. Any programs with a high rate of false positives will have their award reduced by one level. For example, a program which has a detection rate high enough to earn an Advanced Award will be demoted to a Standard Award if it produces a high rate of false alarms.


Detection and False Alarm Results:



Antivirus Awards; (Based on detection rates and false alarms)

Advanced+ - F-Secure, Kaspersky, Bitdefender, Emsisoft, Bullguard, Fortinet, Sophos, Trend Micro.

Advanced - Avira, G-Data, McAfee, Panda, eScan, Vipre, AVG, ESET, Avast.

Standard - AhnLab

Tested - Symantec








Source

Edited October 14, 2013 by Matsuda

[ramiz0]

Thank for the info man

[Matsuda]

No surprise for microsoft detection rates, but symantec? :eek:

[Guinness]

Nice info, thanks for sharing it. ;)

Yep, Symantec results are pretty surprising indeed.

[QuicksilverInc]

Very interesting results, what has happened to symantec :wtf:

[psyko666]

http://community.norton.com/t5/Norton-Internet-Security-Norton/AV-Comparatives-File-Detection-Test-September-2013/td-p/1035633

[Matsuda]

http://community.norton.com/t5/Norton-Internet-Security-Norton/AV-Comparatives-File-Detection-Test-September-2013/td-p/1035633

No worries soon Dennis Labs will help Symantec. :P

[ns870152]

With default settings, ESET never has high scores

[DKT27]

No surprise for microsoft detection rates, but symantec? :eek:

Surprising indeed to see Symantec scores. However, I'm more surprised to see Symantec in this test in the first place. Anyone remembers AV-C vs Symantec?

[Nastrahl]

With default settings, ESET never has high scores

I read they do their test with the highest security settings for each AVs if I'm not wrong. It's probably mentioned somewhere in their reports.*

Personally, I only aim for the one that got the less impact on the system instead of higher detection rate, because since I'm confident with my use of my computer/Internet and I don't want to "hang" or diminish the performance of my computer for a issue I never get. For that ESET is a really good choice and since it's a great AV too, I know the few 3% it misses must be some hard-to-find malwares 99% people won't get with usual Internet uses. :)

Edited October 14, 2013 by Nastrahl

[Blackchildcx]

used Gdata ;)

for 3 years

now switch to Kaspersky

thats for sure

great soft

Edited October 14, 2013 by Blackchildcx

[ns870152]

if the 100.000 malware samples don't exist in my country, and My antivirus detects all malware samples in my country

Is My antivirus the best ?

Edited October 14, 2013 by ns870152

[Blackchildcx]

No surprise for microsoft detection rates, but symantec? :eek:

Surprising indeed to see Symantec scores. However, I'm more surprised to see Symantec in this test in the first place. Anyone remembers AV-C vs Symantec?

M$ always failed ;-)

Edited October 14, 2013 by Blackchildcx

[Nautilus]

Brilliant, thanks

[NightWalker]

With default settings, ESET never has high scores

I read they do their test with the highest security settings for each AVs if I'm not wrong. It's probably mentioned somewhere in their reports.*

Personally, I only aim for the one that got the less impact on the system instead of higher detection rate, because since I'm confident with my use of my computer/Internet and I don't want to "hang" or diminish the performance of my computer for a issue I never get. For that ESET is a really good choice and since it's a great AV too, I know the few 3% it misses must be some hard-to-find malwares 99% people won't get with usual Internet uses. :)

ESET is much better on real world in my experience than Lab tests says it does. In my machine it has low system impact and false positives, so for me it is a winner.

There are antivirus that seems to have 99,99 % detection in tests, but you still see users infected :P

Antivirus arent perfect because of its design, it is always necessary to have other protections (and backup) in place to keep you safe ...

Edited October 14, 2013 by NightWalker

[ns870152]

3% is keygen, crack, patch :D

[Nautilus]

With default settings, ESET never has high scores

I read they do their test with the highest security settings for each AVs if I'm not wrong. It's probably mentioned somewhere in their reports.*

Personally, I only aim for the one that got the less impact on the system instead of higher detection rate, because since I'm confident with my use of my computer/Internet and I don't want to "hang" or diminish the performance of my computer for a issue I never get. For that ESET is a really good choice and since it's a great AV too, I know the few 3% it misses must be some hard-to-find malwares 99% people won't get with usual Internet uses. :)

Agreed. Some AVs are always close to 99.9% like Bitdefender and Kaspersky but that doesn't mean a thing to me. I have a huge respect for them and honestly they are a fantastic products but they feel so heavy on my three PCs and they cripple my internet speed. I would like to use them but I guess I'm not the lucky one.

That's why I like to use lightweight champions like ESET, BullGuard, WSA . Anyway, most of them are great, and all we have to do is to choose what's the best for us and our PCs and of course to keep our brain.exe turned on.

[Nastrahl]

With default settings, ESET never has high scores

I read they do their test with the highest security settings for each AVs if I'm not wrong. It's probably mentioned somewhere in their reports.*

Personally, I only aim for the one that got the less impact on the system instead of higher detection rate, because since I'm confident with my use of my computer/Internet and I don't want to "hang" or diminish the performance of my computer for a issue I never get. For that ESET is a really good choice and since it's a great AV too, I know the few 3% it misses must be some hard-to-find malwares 99% people won't get with usual Internet uses. :)

ESET is much better on real world in my experience than Lab tests says it does. In my machine it has low system impact and false positives, so for me it is a winner.

There are antivirus that seems to have 99,99 % detection in tests, but you still see users infected :P

Antivirus arent perfect because of its design, it is always necessary to have other protections (and backup) in place to keep you safe ...

I must agree there. The real test for me is the retrospective/heuristic one, that let you know the detection rate of unknown malwares, since the creation rate is faster than cures.

With default settings, ESET never has high scores

I read they do their test with the highest security settings for each AVs if I'm not wrong. It's probably mentioned somewhere in their reports.*

Personally, I only aim for the one that got the less impact on the system instead of higher detection rate, because since I'm confident with my use of my computer/Internet and I don't want to "hang" or diminish the performance of my computer for a issue I never get. For that ESET is a really good choice and since it's a great AV too, I know the few 3% it misses must be some hard-to-find malwares 99% people won't get with usual Internet uses. :)

Agreed. Some AVs are always close to 99.9% like Bitdefender and Kaspersky but that doesn't mean a thing to me. I have a huge respect for them and honestly they are a fantastic products but they feel so heavy on my three PCs and they cripple my internet speed. I would like to use them but I guess I'm not the lucky one.

That's why I like to use lightweight champions like ESET, BullGuard, WSA . Anyway, most of them are great, and all we have to do is to choose what's the best for us and our PCs and of course to keep our brain.exe turned on.

You sire, are 100% right. :)

[ramiz0]

No surprise for microsoft detection rates, but symantec? :eek:

:D

[Guest maut]

AV-Comparatives requires products to submit to all tests. Because Symantec declines to participate in the File Detection test, it is prohibited from joining the Real-World Protection test, a test in which Norton has always performed extremely well in the past. So what does AV-Comparatives do? They put Norton into the File Detection test anyway but do not enter Norton into the Real-World Test. I guess when you make the rules, you are allowed to break the rules.