Comodo, McAfee and PC Tools failed latest tests at AV-Test.org

[AlienForce1]

During April, May and June 2011 AV-Test.org continuously evaluated 22 security products using their default settings. We always used the most current publicly-available version of all products for the testing. They were allowed to update themselves at any time and query their in-the-cloud services. We focused on realistic test scenarios and challenged the products against real-world threats. Products had to demonstrate their capabilities using all components and protection layers.

Products were evaluated regarding the latest viruses, viruses in the Wild (ITW) (10,224 viruses), blocking viruses in test execution and "classic" on a larger set of malware (viruses 424.860). All viruses were collected in the three months of testing.

The results are :

1.BitDefender Internet Security 2011-17 points

2.Kaspersky Internet Security 2011/2012 - 16 points

3.Panda Internet Security 2011/2012 - 15.5 points

AV-TEST Product Review and Certification Report - 2011/Q2

BitDefender

Kaspersky

Panda

- for comparison here are other results :

Comodo - failed

Avast

ESET (nod32)

Symantec (NIS2011)

McAfee - failed

PC Tools - failed

[zeon22]

Microsoft Security Essentials 2.0 vs. Kaspersky, Avira, AVG, Symantec, BitDefender in AV Test

Microsoft Security Essentials 2.0 is far from the top spot in a latest round of antivirus testing performed by AV-Test , but the free security solution for Windows faired rather well, even on par with paid products.

According to statistics shared by AV-Test, MSE 2.0 scored a total of 12 points, 2.5 for Protection, 4.5 for Repair and 5.0 for Usability, out of a maximum of 6 for each category.

Security solutions need to reach at least 11 in order to be AV-Test certified, and some of them managed to fail the benchmark altogether. Windows XP SP3 was the platform used for the tests.

"During the 2nd quarter of 2011 we have tested 22 security products in the areas protection, repair and usability. The "Protection" covers static and dynamic malware detection, including real-world 0-Day attack testing. In case of "Repair", we check the system disinfection and rootkit removal in detail," reads a message from AV-Test .

"The "Usability" testing includes the system slow-down caused by the tools and the number of false positives. A product has to reach at least 11 out of 18 possible points in order to receive a certification. 16 products have fulfilled our requirements and received an AV-TEST certificate."

The testing reveals that Microsoft Security Essentials 2.0 has problems when it comes down to blocking 0-day (zero day) malware attacks as well as stopping malicious code after its execution.

MSE 2.0 however, manages to detect prevalent threats without any issues, as well as remove it from infected machines. Additional issues are encountered when it comes down to cleaning a computer compromised by a rootkit.

Microsoft Security Essentials 2.0's strong points remain its usability, performance and flawless no-false-positives track record.

A number of security products have failed the tests performed by AV-Test, including: CA: Internet Security Suite 2011, Comodo: Internet Security Premium 5.3 and 5.4, McAfee: Total Protection 2011, PC Tools: Internet Security 2011.

Source

[nuthut]

I love reading the BS Comodo puts out....

From my facebook Acct..

" Me posted to Comodo - Desktop Security

in response to your "virus free guarentee"

7 hours ago · Like ·

Me -

The results are :

1.BitDefender Internet Security 2011-17 points

2.Kaspersky Internet Security 2011/2012 - 16 points

3.Panda Internet Security 2011/2012 - 15.5 points

...

See More

7 hours ago · Like.

Comodo - Desktop Security - Money talks...if they are so good why don't they stand behind their product and guarantee it? :)

about an hour ago · Like.

Comodo - Desktop Security - Also comparing some old method of testing for a Next Generation product like CIS will of course confuse the uneducated security buyer.

about an hour ago · Like.

Comodo - Desktop Security - Wayne, sure we will give all our work for free, perhaps you can be so kind to buy our kids some food then? I think Comodo gives plenty for free already.

19 minutes ago · Like.

Comodo - Desktop Security - or better: wayne, pls come and work for Comodo for free! Then we promise to make wifi protectio for free.

17 minutes ago · Like"

[madeinheaven]

2011-Q2 AV-TEST Product Review and Certification Report

Independent testing body AV-Test.org has released the results of its latest round of testing, putting 22 of the latest security suites through a barrage of measures covering detection rates, real-world protection measures, performance and false positive testing and much more besides. Sixteen of the products taking part met the test requirements and were awarded certifications, with six not making the grade.

The certification process divides the battery of tests into three areas: "Protection", covering live execution of threats and real-world penetration vectors as well as simple static detection of AV-Test's reference set of samples from the last few months and WildList samples, "Repair", which includes detection and removal of rootkits as well as cleaning various common malware types, and "Usability", which covers speed and performance measures and also false positives recorded in both static and dynamic tests. Up to six points are awarded for each section for a maximum of 18, with 11 required for a certification pass.

Leading the pack were solutions from BitDefender, with an impressive 17 out of 18, Kaspersky with 16, Panda with 15.5 and F-Secure with 15. Also doing well were Avast, G Data, Sophos and Symantec, all on 13.5, AVG, BullGuard and Eset with 13 points, and Trend Micro with 12.5. Avira and Microsoft’s Security Essentials had a small safety cushion with 12 points, while solutions from GFI and Webroot lived right on the edge with 11 - just enough to secure a certification.

Just short of the cut-off were products from K7 and PC Tools, narrowly missing with 10.5 points, while CA, Comodo, McAfee and Norman fell some way short, all scoring below ten. The list of uncertified products is unchanged since the last set of results, apart from the addition of K7 which appears for the first time this round, in place of eScan which was absent from the latest set of results.

Full details of the tests, with reports for each product taking part as well as historical test records, can be found at the AV-Test.org website, here.

[Bizarre™]

It's always best to remember that reviews are just only that, reviews.

What matters significantly, is the real world performance.

[AlienForce1]

It's always best to remember that reviews are just only that, reviews.

What matters significantly, is the real world performance.

These tests are some very powerful marketing tools - and are therefore taken seriously by most antivirus companies - and make sure that if one of them comes out wrinkled from a test session will be surely some sanctions and analysis results .

However be sure that ``in the real world performance`` the results won`t differ much from these reviews - that is the reason why ( and how ) these test are made .

The Antiviruses / Security Suites are tested against the latest malware ``in the wild`` - with which the average user it is highly probable to be confronted .

Sure can be exceptions - but that they will remain - exceptions .

[Gabben]

I love reading the BS Comodo puts out....

From my facebook Acct..

" Me posted to Comodo - Desktop Security

in response to your "virus free guarentee"

7 hours ago · Like ·

Me -

The results are :

1.BitDefender Internet Security 2011-17 points

2.Kaspersky Internet Security 2011/2012 - 16 points

3.Panda Internet Security 2011/2012 - 15.5 points

...

See More

7 hours ago · Like.

Comodo - Desktop Security - Money talks...if they are so good why don't they stand behind their product and guarantee it? :)

about an hour ago · Like.

Comodo - Desktop Security - Also comparing some old method of testing for a Next Generation product like CIS will of course confuse the uneducated security buyer.

about an hour ago · Like.

Comodo - Desktop Security - Wayne, sure we will give all our work for free, perhaps you can be so kind to buy our kids some food then? I think Comodo gives plenty for free already.

19 minutes ago · Like.

Comodo - Desktop Security - or better: wayne, pls come and work for Comodo for free! Then we promise to make wifi protectio for free.

17 minutes ago · Like"

egh... i hate fanboys... :tank:

[Bizarre™]

These tests are some very powerful marketing tools - and are therefore taken seriously by most antivirus companies - and make sure that if one of them comes out wrinkled from a test session will be surely some sanctions and analysis results .

However be sure that ``in the real world performance`` the results won`t differ much from these reviews - that is the reason why ( and how ) these test are made .

The Antiviruses / Security Suites are tested against the latest malware ``in the wild`` - with which the average user it is highly probable to be confronted .

Sure can be exceptions - but that they will remain - exceptions .

You're sadly mistaken if you think there would be little to no difference if you factor in real world performance.

Different computers, different configurations. Different people, different common sense.

[AlienForce1]

You're sadly mistaken if you think there would be little to no difference if you factor in real world performance.

Different computers, different configurations. Different people, different common sense.

I was saying that if you test yourself on your computer all the Security Suites that were previously tested for by AV Test.org (in our case) the results won`t differ much ...

Obviously that if you test for ex. Kaspersky Internet Security 12.0.374 on two comp. with different configuration ( 1. quad-core+4GB RAM and 2. pentium4+1GB RAM) the results will differ a lot ...

[Bizarre™]

@AlienForce1:

I'm not only talking about hardware configurations. When talking about configurations, why limit yourself to a few when you can use a lot?

[Maxhedroom]

For the average home or power user even, imo way too much weight is put on 0day baddies...not something seen too often unless you're dealing with loads of data daily...i.e. servers. And within probably the first 6-12hrs, at least a signature(s) have been sorted by the top AVs and client updates take no time compared to days past. Being that heuristics is the main method to catch most 0day malware there is always the trade off between heavy/advanced heuristics that catch 0days well but also tend to be the most responsible part of an AV for issuing false positives...which none of us are fond of. So if you 'need' the best 0day protection (like a sever would obviously) then jack up the heuristics settings of your AV but be prepared for more false alarms and vice versa. It's a balancing act of sorts for most users that fall in the middle. Being a knowledgeable power user such as myself for example, I know the odds of 'me' coming across a 0day are fairly slim thus I set my heuristics a touch LESS aggressive than usual...and for me, that is perfect. For you, it may not be....let the balancing begin. :unsure:

[lp010437]

bitdefender is very good