av-comparatives on demand tests Feb 2010
in [Freeware]
|
From: VanguardLH on 21 Mar 2010 03:26 gotchard wrote: > On 20 Mar 2010 20:18:02 GMT, Gordon Darling <me(a)privacy.net> wrote: > >>http://www.av-comparatives.org/comparativesreviews/main-tests >> >> >>http://www.av-comparatives.org/images/stories/test/ondret/avc_report25.pdf > > Hey BB, where is your big bad RAV? Anybody ever wonder why RAV is not > tested on AV-Comp? Too inferior maybe? Could be Rising chose not to provide a sample of the product to have put under test. Could be after being informed of the results that they requested those results not be published. Could be it didn't make the top 20 products (not all that are tested make it into their top-20 list). As I recall, Comodo requested the results not be published for their CAV (Comodo AntiVirus) product because it showed poorly by detecting only 38% for pest coverage. Comodo kept their AV product deliberately in beta status to have it not included under standard independent testing. Comodo then shoved it into their firewall suite to make use of the HIPS (Defense+) function to improve coverage but it still remains so low as to not show up in the top-20 testing results report. Like Comodo, Rising is trying to use HIPS to make up for poor detection; i.e., they attempt to use heuristics which incorporate input from the user to detect malicious behavior. I'd rather have a very strong AV component and use HIPS as a safety net rather than use a poor AV component and hope the HIPS safety net was really strong and also hope that my prompted decisions were correct. Sometimes av-comparatives publishes a single-product review (this is how you'll find the old one on Comodo's AV which is pretty old now). Using a site search at Google, I found the following: http://www.av-comparatives.org/seiten/ergebnisse/june2006test.pdf It's an old test. I believe av-comparatives won't include an AV product if it is under 80% coverage detection rate. So I don't know if Rising AV is still under 80% or if it wasn't sufficient to beat out the 20 AV products that made it to the top of the list. With other AV products showing better coverage, and even with their freebie versions including HIPS, there is no compelling reason to use Rising AV. It is a choice but there are better choices.
From: baynole2 on 21 Mar 2010 09:12 On Mar 21, 1:27 am, Poutnik <m...(a)privacy.net> wrote: > In article <2d01ca67-c6a8-4d8e-83a5-1981b8d78c35 > @g4g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>, bayn...(a)gmail.com says... > > > > > I am getting to be a bit perturbed by Avast's memory use--not the app > > itself, but how it builds up in AshWebService.I am at 79MB for that as > > I type, & two other "ash" things use another 23MB.This is in v4.8, & I > > am not using everything available with the program.Like Firefox, once > > it grabs RAM, it doesn't let go. > > Avast 5 has a 2 processes, > AvastSvc, taking 35-40MB of working set on my Vista64 HPremium, > and AvastUI taking 10MB. > Comparing to other processes, it is not much. > > E.g. even so simple one as Process Explorer take almost 50MB. > > Avast 5 is said to be designed > to take less memory as avast 4.x. > > -- > Poutnik > The best depends on how the best is defined. Thanks. As I said, it isn't the main app but the Ash thing. I tried v5 but it slowed down surfing considerably. It may be that I didn't turn off unnecessary modules, as was pointed out in a recent post.
From: Franklin on 21 Mar 2010 10:08 VanguardLH wrote: > gotchard wrote: > >> On 20 Mar 2010 20:18:02 GMT, Gordon Darling <me(a)privacy.net> wrote: >> >>> http://www.av-comparatives.org/comparativesreviews/main-tests >>> >>> http://www.av-comparatives.org/images/stories/test/ >>> ondretavc_report25.pdf >> >> Hey BB, where is your big bad RAV? Anybody ever wonder why RAV is not >> tested on AV-Comp? Too inferior maybe? > > Could be Rising chose not to provide a sample of the product to have put > under test. Could be after being informed of the results that they > requested those results not be published. Could be it didn't make the > top 20 products (not all that are tested make it into their top-20 > list). > > As I recall, Comodo requested the results not be published for their CAV > (Comodo AntiVirus) product because it showed poorly by detecting only > 38% for pest coverage. Comodo kept their AV product deliberately in > beta status to have it not included under standard independent testing. > Comodo then shoved it into their firewall suite to make use of the HIPS > (Defense+) function to improve coverage but it still remains so low as > to not show up in the top-20 testing results report. Like Comodo, > Rising is trying to use HIPS to make up for poor detection; i.e., they > attempt to use heuristics which incorporate input from the user to > detect malicious behavior. > > I'd rather have a very strong AV component and use HIPS as a safety net > rather than use a poor AV component and hope the HIPS safety net was > really strong and also hope that my prompted decisions were correct. > > Sometimes av-comparatives publishes a single-product review (this is how > you'll find the old one on Comodo's AV which is pretty old now). Using > a site search at Google, I found the following: > > http://www.av-comparatives.org/seiten/ergebnisse/june2006test.pdf > > It's an old test. I believe av-comparatives won't include an AV product > if it is under 80% coverage detection rate. So I don't know if Rising > AV is still under 80% or if it wasn't sufficient to beat out the 20 AV > products that made it to the top of the list. With other AV products > showing better coverage, and even with their freebie versions including > HIPS, there is no compelling reason to use Rising AV. It is a choice > but there are better choices. The only people who like Comodo and Rising are those who overlook their crummy performance. ISTR Bottoms picks up a recommendations from other websites. I guess failed to notice when the web site promoting CAV and RAV changed its mind.
From: Gordon Darling on 21 Mar 2010 12:04
On Sun, 21 Mar 2010 12:30:42 +0000, Bear Bottoms wrote: <snip> > Rising opted out of those AV tests because they are based on signature > detection and not infection. Please cite evidence that "Rising opted out of those AV tests" -- ox·y·mo·ron n. pl. ox·y·mo·ra or ox·y·mo·rons A rhetorical figure in which incongruous or contradictory terms are combined, as in Microsoft Security, Microsoft Help and Microsoft Works. |