New Antivirus Test
Here is a new (to me) Antivirus test http://malwareresearchgroup.com/ , not a bad result by BitDefender but I was expecting better 
Comments
-
Are you able to post the results? I can see them
0 -
G'Day Folks,
Just click on this link and go directly to the Malware test Results Malware Research Group project #016
Copy right does not allow for posting them here !
Not bad for a general performance test result, however I would like details of the samples used to evaluate and interpret the result weighted against the respective definition files for each of the software used.
Also I would like the tests to be performed by 2 other Testing Organizations and compare the results then of all 3.
0 -
G'Day Folks,
Just click on this link and go directly to the Malware test Results Malware Research Group project #016
Copy right does not allow for posting them here !
Not bad for a general performance test result, however I would like details of the samples used to evaluate and interpret the result weighted against the respective definition files for each of the software used.
Also I would like the tests to be performed by 2 other Testing Organizations and compare the results then of all 3.
I would like that too, pcbugfixer. I also wonder why they only send in sambles of 20% of the virus and other malware a program does not detect. Personally I would send in 100% and if I were developing antivirus programs I would be interested in getting 100%.0 -
G'Day Folks,
Just click on this link and go directly to the Malware test Results Malware Research Group project #016
Copy right does not allow for posting them here !
Not bad for a general performance test result, however I would like details of the samples used to evaluate and interpret the result weighted against the respective definition files for each of the software used.
Also I would like the tests to be performed by 2 other Testing Organizations and compare the results then of all 3.
I was looking at some other tests, BitDefender has more or less the same score on all of them, which I guess is good. Take a look at removed for example, their results differ on every test.
Unlike most, BitDefender is a stable product and it can be trusted, most importantly it is always among the top ones.0 -
.........
Unlike most, BitDefender is a stable product and it can be trusted, most importantly it is always among the top ones.
Ummm, sorry. Can you repeat that? My personal experience is BDIS2009 is getting more and more unstable. I find I have plenty to do allready manually deleting the outdated folders with definition files, now I also have to try twice to start my computer as BDIS 2009 hangs the first time, and then there're the different errors it throws like tmp files it can't read, dll files that doesn't work and services that don't start or suddenly stops responding. If you don't believe me, try read the forums. What is it worth having an effective antivirus and firewall installed if you stops trusting it? It's supposed to run silently in the background only with the occational alert when a new program tries to go online or when a reboot is needed.
Sorry if I offend anyone, I'm just getting pretty tired of this BitDefender circus.0 -
G'Day HG_PCDania and alesandro,
The stability (in general terms) and the performance with regard to protecting my LAN System and the PC Workstations on it, is of primary concern to me.
The other aspects that are of importance to me, are the User Options that the Security Suite allows the user to be in control of !
This was important so that Scans could be set to particular time rather than some others which perform these automatically when the system is idle or when they think it is necessary and also perform other automated tasks like disk de-fragmentation at the same time, which is not a good idea at all !
I have seen (needing to repair and or restore) to many of the crashes these automations can cause, to use them when they think the users are ****** and assume to take over the performance of these and other functions without correctly setting an interval to ensure that they do not conflict and perform these tasks at the same time.
Initially they are to blame for users not understanding the functions and the options parameters due to the poor or lack of explanatory documentation that they supply, saying that its on the Retail Pack CD, or some other minuscule printed A6 sized piece of paper. Try reading the CD on your PC screen while your setting the options and going backward and forwards reading and setting, reading and setting, etc. On the Download installation files you don't even get a text file with instructions which should have been included.
Obviously, having a hard copy (which we now need to print) is better. However this is not good when the documentation is poorly set out and on some foreign paper size needing 20 pages to be printed which could have been simplified by taking out the commercials (Publishers propaganda) formating it correctly and reducing it to 6 A4 pages.
The 100% protection is a pipe dream I think, but is on my wish list and sent it to both Santa Clause and the Easter Bunny. It ain't going to happen ! However others have, according tho these tests, gotten a higher detection rate result than BD did, and "Yes" BD could aim a little higher. A few years back I did see them on the top of the list.
The difference you noticed with removed is related to the Definitions loaded at the time of the test, which they did not report and could have been tested with different sets of definitions.
I agree with you HG_PCDania that the sample of Programs is too small to be of significant value. We need a test result of the performance of the top 100 in Security Suits like the BDIS 2009 and differentiated from single Application Anti-Virus ONLY types, and others. Each group should be tested on its own and not combined when they have differing sub components. If they have they should be grouped in accord with their inclusions. The inclutions in a Security suite must be the same in every program that is tested to be of comparative value!
I could raise more matters regarding these type of test, however close with waht I said on another post,
“If you look long enough, you will find any publisher on the top of one of the review lists or the Top 10 list! - Think about it."
So it is with Test Reports.0 -
G'Day HG_PCDania,
In reply to your last post here - Have you heard of "Murphy's Law" ?
Interpreted for this topic, it would read something like this.
"If you have a 100 PC's all the same OS's with the same Security Suite installed on them, Murphy's Law would have it that on some % of them what can go wrong, will go wrong, and will apply to any other combination thereof."
Sound as though your in the % of Murphy's Law.
Your experience therefor may warrant your remarks, however that is true of any other publishers Forum in this category who have the same issues and negative comments posted.
There is no perfect Human Being, as such there cannot be a "Perfect Program" as it is Humans who write them and therefor we will never see a 100% Parasite protection on a Computer while it is connected to the Internet or uses Infected installation programs.0 -
Ummm, sorry. Can you repeat that? My personal experience is BDIS2009 is getting more and more unstable. I find I have plenty to do allready manually deleting the outdated folders with definition files, now I also have to try twice to start my computer as BDIS 2009 hangs the first time, and then there're the different errors it throws like tmp files it can't read, dll files that doesn't work and services that don't start or suddenly stops responding. If you don't believe me, try read the forums. What is it worth having an effective antivirus and firewall installed if you stops trusting it? It's supposed to run silently in the background only with the occational alert when a new program tries to go online or when a reboot is needed.
Sorry if I offend anyone, I'm just getting pretty tired of this BitDefender circus.
Nope, I was only referring to detection rates the stability in that department, what I meant to say is that BD is not like some who appear to be getting 99% on one test and 90% on the other
0 -
G'Day HG_PCDania,
In reply to your last post here - Have you heard of "Murphy's Law" ?
Interpreted for this topic, it would read something like this.
"If you have a 100 PC's all the same OS's with the same Security Suite installed on them, Murphy's Law would have it that on some % of them what can go wrong, will go wrong, and will apply to any other combination thereof."
Sound as though your in the % of Murphy's Law.
Your experience therefor may warrant your remarks, however that is true of any other publishers Forum in this category who have the same issues and negative comments posted.
There is no perfect Human Being, as such there cannot be a "Perfect Program" as it is Humans who write them and therefor we will never see a 100% Parasite protection on a Computer while it is connected to the Internet or uses Infected installation programs.
I know there is no such thing as 100% protection against virus and malware and the closest we have been to the perfect program is an old version of Word Perfect. Can't remember the version but it ran in DOS.
Most of it are bugs in the program like that one they are working on fixing (the outdated folders not being deleted). Naturally some of it could be Murphy's law as I haven't been hit by that law for about 10 years, but that only includes 5 computers or so. My very first computer back in '95 was Murphy's law by itself as it started deleting the software on it by itself for no reason
" /> It was installed with Win3.1 and IBMs Aptiva user interface or what it was. Regardless, those two didn't like each other on that computer. Don't know why I didn't get scared away from computers back then, a few years later I was hooked with line and sink and everything.
Sure no program is perfect, I've done my share of betatesting games so I know from experience how bad things can be, even when a patch should make things better but rather makes it worse. Beta testing is high risk so I allways make a backup image first which I then use when the testing is over. As you will note I also states I'm getting pretty tired of this program. I've found out the bug I reported was found back in October last year. Another forumer here gave a link to a thread from back then.
BitDefender required me to reboot my PC 2 days ago and has been running more unstable sinse then. I never know when it will act up and when not, it's almost like it's got a dual-personality. Booting the computer yesterday required 2 tries every time, today it booted at first try though BitDefender was a bit slow in loading. At least I haven't had that .tmp error sinse some time yesterday. (please stay away Murphy).0 -
In my experience I can say I have no problem (now) with Bitdefender IS 2009; I don't open suspicious web sites and so it's very difficult to get a virus. But when someone brings his computer to me for cleaning, I install Bitdefender and run a deep scan. The result is always like this: not only 100% of viruses are detected and for some detection you can only ignore them (i.e. no action is possible). If you find a virus and can't remove it or delete the file, what you perform a scan for?
Even real-time protection is not perfect. Some rogue antivirus are detected by scan but not by real-time protection, i prefer an antivirus that leave virus out of my computer.
Many time I have seen in this forum things like "install MalwareBytes' Antimalware and perform a scan to remove...". Why I have to install another program, when I have Bitdefender installed?
I tried G Data 2009 (the same engine and virus definition of Bitdefender + Avast), it finds other viruses and you can always take an actions (disinfect, quarantine or cancel). I also experienced that for spyware/adware Bitdefender is not at top level and maybe it requires another security solution installed together, as an antispyware. I have Bitdefender and Spy Sweeper installed together and they work good, but I don't trust only Bitdefender installed. Finally I think that stability, no bugs, lightness are important, but more important is a virus and spyware detection rate close to 100% and Bitdefender can't do this.0 -
Here is a new (to me) Antivirus test http://malwareresearchgroup.com/ , not a bad result by BitDefender but I was expecting better
So unprofessional !
Maybe i will do a blog just like that and my tests....will "talk" more that boring results.0
