Jump to content

Really , did BitDefender improve that much ?


AlienForce1

Recommended Posts

Matousec`s Proactive Security Challenge

Latest news

* 2011-08-27: A single product update:

* BitDefender Internet Security 2011 14.0.30.357

BitDefender Internet Security has been improved again. Its new 97% score suggests that there are not many tests that can bypass its protection. Although its overall protection has been improved, some of the problems with its application behavior control module, which we identified last time, were not mitigated. Many alerts displayed by BitDefender Internet Security still lack important information that would help users to make correct decisions. More information can be found in the final report (http://www.matousec....14.0.30.357.pdf)

VcF3c.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Replies 13
  • Views 2.4k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

i'd take that study with a bag of salt (as opposed to a pinch of salt), not likely this "online solutions security suite", comodo, outpost, malware defender, private firewall, anything at all from pctools are in the top 10 and avg, f-secure, avast, eset are at the very bottom!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Administrator

i'd take that study with a bag of salt (as opposed to a pinch of salt), not likely this "online solutions security suite", comodo, outpost, malware defender, private firewall, anything at all from pctools are in the top 10 and avg, f-secure, avast, eset are at the very bottom!!!

These test are based on HIPS, not only on firewall. Except AVG that sucks big time, others may not have strong HIPS, or even wont have any HIPS. Just wait ESET 5 to release, you'll see it climbing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


These test are based on HIPS, not only on firewall. Except AVG that sucks big time, others may not have strong HIPS, or even wont have any HIPS. Just wait ESET 5 to release, you'll see it climbing.

I believe too that ESET 5 will be finally a first step ahead for a good firewall from ESET - yet , they should put some basic rules in that HIPS for the well known programs ...

Link to comment
Share on other sites


i think it was mentioned previously by someone somewhere in the forums matousec is very partial/biased and untrustworthy. you can see noname "security software"scoring higher numbers that all the big players which is very unlikely, don't you think? in addition to the ones I mentioned above, they're getting higher numbers than even kaspersky and NIS

Link to comment
Share on other sites


I don't take ANY review seriously when there is a 'Get it now!' link next to the 'top rated' entries. :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites


i think it was mentioned previously by someone somewhere in the forums matousec is very partial/biased and untrustworthy. you can see noname "security software"scoring higher numbers that all the big players which is very unlikely, don't you think? in addition to the ones I mentioned above, they're getting higher numbers than even kaspersky and NIS

That is not nice from your part - if there is a software that you don`t know that doesn`t necesarily mean that is not good , or better then the ones you know .

The really bad thing is that Matousec is the only one that does tests for Firewalls - would be good if there were another 2 or 3 companies that test Firewalls (think how many are testing anti-virus ...)

Link to comment
Share on other sites


I'm not trying to insult or defame anyone, i was just trying to say they're unknowns, with unproven track records that's all

Link to comment
Share on other sites


There are many different organisations who judge security suites. I think the most reliable is the Austrian AV Comparitives.

Please look at thier latest independent performance test: here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Remember this is just a hips test. If product doesn't use hips it will be at the bottom. Most aggresive hips will prob hit the top. You can't judge a product solely on hips.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Hrhm.. where did Online Armor Free disappear from their lists :o

And... Didn't F-Secure use Bitdefender's or Kaspersky's engine..

Didn't bother try it since it's a HUGE RESOURCE HOG,unless they have improved something the past few years..

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Statement from matousec

Online Armor temporarily disqualified

Different Internet Experience Ltd.has established number of business connections on the field of Windows security. Our clients and partners, vendors of the market leading security products, benefit from our testing and research services. Many of their products implement the technology that was designed, developed or tested in our labs.

One of our business connections, partnership with Tall Emu Pty Ltd, the original vendor of Online Armor, has been ended recently. Our break-up did not go well. Our companyraised claims against Tall Emu Pty Ltd closely related to Online Armor products that have not been satisfied and hence the whole dispute will probably takea long time to solve. In order to protect our company we are forced to temporarily disqualify Online Armor products from our projects. Online Armor will be returned as soon as the dispute is solved or when there is a significant move in the case that is likely to solve the case in a short period of time. We apologize to our visitors for any inconvenience.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Hmm The OA people wouldn't pay up for the tests would they? Quite a while ago now but your post reminded me.

i concur. didn't cough up the dough most probably...

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...