Av-Comparatives Retrospective/Proactive Test - november 2009

[DKT27]

@Heath: That was not the case. I had checked everythin.

<br><br>@LeetPirate: Thanx for the info. <br>

[Night Owl]

Also take a look at the removal tests as well. Equally as important as the detection tests.

I think it would be far more important to keep malware out of your system rather than to have something compromise your system doing who knows what. Removal may not even be possilbe. And as the chart shows, no antivirus product is rated "very good" in malware removal. Better to keep the malware out before damage is done.

[Jota.Ce]

I agree that a pro-active test involves using old signitures. But I don't agree that pro-active test involves using old engines. Since the newer Norton improves SONAR detection which is secifically designed for pro-active defense, that just proves my point. Anyway, I guess AV Comparatives when they tested it was the newest version of Norton so not their fault. :)

IMO using old engines is correct since you want to measure how good is a security solution against "future" threats. So if i want to measure how good is my ESS 4.0.474 today, i need to freeze signatures and components up to 3-6 months and then check new viruses.

I think they are acting correctly, but it's frustrating known how good some products were 6 months ago with nowadays threats xDDDDDD

[someone]

Also take a look at the removal tests as well. Equally as important as the detection tests.

I think it would be far more important to keep malware out of your system rather than to have something compromise your system doing who knows what. Removal may not even be possilbe. And as the chart shows, no antivirus product is rated "very good" in malware removal. Better to keep the malware out before damage is done.

agreed 100%. In the case of a infection, better use a image to restore the system. Prevention is better than cure.

@LeetPirate

If you use XP professional or Vista professional/Ultimate you can create a SRP rule to block the execution of "avnotify.exe" and "avnotify.dll". For the scanning inside zipped files, you can switch it off here:

[ESET Freak]

Quite shocked by Norton's poor results. They really need to import PC Tools technology into NIS/NAV to make it better than this.

Only thing is that AV Comparatives didn't test the latest 17.1.0.19 which has improved SONAR (pro-active) detection.

Norton isn't that bad... I bet they turned off SONAR when they tested Norton, as Norton relies mainly on SONAR to detect in-the-wild malwares. Personally, I turned on SONAR and set it to Aggressive and it never let me down, caught lots of malware but lots of false-positive as well :P

[LeetPirate]

Quite shocked by Norton's poor results. They really need to import PC Tools technology into NIS/NAV to make it better than this.

Only thing is that AV Comparatives didn't test the latest 17.1.0.19 which has improved SONAR (pro-active) detection.

Norton isn't that bad... I bet they turned off SONAR when they tested Norton, as Norton relies mainly on SONAR to detect in-the-wild malwares. Personally, I turned on SONAR and set it to Aggressive and it never let me down, caught lots of malware but lots of false-positive as well :P

I would probably use Norton more if the fix would just stay fixed, LOL. Norton keeps blacklisting the fixes ever so often. :(

[Zeus_Hunt]

BOX_NTR2010v2.5NE has been working gr8 so far :)

[*dcs18]

[mara-]

I guess Avira scored so high because it detects everything as a malware :lol: They have to much flase postives.

I was also supprised to see how Norton scored low. I just hope that Sonar protection is really improved with latest version.

Cheers ;)