Jump to content


 


Register a free account to unlock additional features at BleepingComputer.com
Welcome to BleepingComputer, a free community where people like yourself come together to discuss and learn how to use their computers. Using the site is easy and fun. As a guest, you can browse and view the various discussions in the forums, but can not create a new topic or reply to an existing one unless you are logged in. Other benefits of registering an account are subscribing to topics and forums, creating a blog, and having no ads shown anywhere on the site.


Click here to Register a free account now! or read our Welcome Guide to learn how to use this site.

Photo

Antivirus programs tested for Windows 8


  • Please log in to reply
3 replies to this topic

#1 Allan

Allan

  • BC Advisor
  • 8,576 posts
  • ONLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:New Jersey
  • Local time:08:21 AM

Posted 08 April 2013 - 05:48 PM

Antivirus programs tested for Windows 8
 

The  AV-TEST Institute has published the first results of its testing of Windows 8 virus scanners. Throughout January and February 2013, the Germany-based virus lab tested nine antivirus programs for corporate networks and 26 for home users. The institute based its results for private users and businesses on three categories: protection, performance and usability. According to AV-TEST, the average "0 day" protection rate of all of the programs increased from 92 per cent in a previous test for Windows 7 to 95 per cent for Windows 8.


http://www.h-online.com/security/news/item/Antivirus-programs-tested-for-Windows-8-1836810.html



BC AdBot (Login to Remove)

 


#2 Brandon007

Brandon007

  • Members
  • 2 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Local time:05:21 AM

Posted 14 April 2013 - 04:30 PM

AV-Test labs are a great independent resource, but this chart is misleading. The results need to be scrutinized to be objective, so I'll give it a shot. Since most people look to such charts to get the best protection, shouldn't the priority focus on detection rate? I've seen magazines skew results to favour their clients. You can usually work out how they get away with spinning the numbers by closely scrutinizing how tests were done, what criteria was used, how the data was interpreted, and how the results were presented. Follow the money, it's a hidden conflict of interest. In my opinion, using deceptive practices to promote a bad product by penalizing the real winner for a single false positive is ludicrous, and homeland security should prosecute them for compromising global security. No one wants inferior security products, especially when it comes to safeguarding your family, finances, identity, business, etc. In this AV-Test chart, grouping the results has made BitDefender look like the very best, and yes at this point in time it is one of the best. This chart places total scores for usability, performance and protection on top of each other for a grand total score. By that logic, one could argue that since G Data uses both BitDefender and Avast, total scores from both of those products should be placed on top of each other in G Data's grand total score! In fact if you look at performance alone, G Data ties with BitDefender. The point here is the chart penalizes G Data for a tiny performance hit. This should be expected when you do twice the work. The bigger picture is that for years G Data has consistently, and continues to detect many more infections than any other product. This is evidenced by years of AV-Test's own results. Performance should only be a concern when the overhead is excessive. If your computer is too feeble to run a normal Antivirus program, either be patient, get some upgrades, or a better computer. I understand that competition means better products, but ditch the deception and the junk. Not everyone will buy just the best product, but the fiercer competition might force even better multi-engine products to market. More engines means more security. Every week I have to use at least 15 different products just to make sure customer's computers are clean. I would love to have 3 or 4 products similar to Hitman with several engines each. My point here is if charts were less misleading, more people would have better protection, so there would be less infections and problems in this world, and isn't that the goal?



#3 ElderAmGeek

ElderAmGeek

  • Members
  • 2 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Maplewood MN
  • Local time:07:21 AM

Posted 17 April 2013 - 04:50 PM

They didn't even test the best one which is Vipre!



#4 Brandon007

Brandon007

  • Members
  • 2 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Local time:05:21 AM

Posted 17 December 2014 - 12:35 PM

Not sure if AV-TEST is still misleading us by combining over zealous penalties for minor issues with detection rates, but apparently they have also been misleading us with their certifications. According to the link below, it would appear that their certification process changed, lacks objectivity, and is producing flawed results. Apparently we should ignore their certifications, and just check their Protection and Performance results, which is what Delta Computers has been doing for years. http://eugene.kaspersky.com/2013/05/09/av-test-certification-devalued/






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users