Unsolved
This post is more than 5 years old
2 Intern
•
5.8K Posts
•
17.3K Points
0
8471
October 21st, 2014 14:00
September AV-Comparatives Test Results
AV-C recently released its Real-World Dynamic Protection Test, and its File Detection Test results for September, 2014. The former tests proactive protection against recent and zero-day threats. The latter test is static, and detects infected files. You can view the results here:
http://www.av-comparatives.org
Remarks:
- The Real World test: of the free AVs Panda blocked 99.5% with 6 false positives. Avast! Free blocked 95.8% with only 1 false positive. Both remain competetitive with all the paid AVs.
-The File Detection test: of the free AVs Panda detected 98.9%, with 2 false positives. Avast! Free detected 98.6%, with 120 false positives. (This seems anomalous, and possibly a one-time occurence, similar to the August test that found 34 FPs with Panda. Neither Panda nor Avast! have had a high FP detection rate in the previous tests). I've seen no FPs with Panda, and suspect that those using Avast! could say the same.
ky331
5 Journeyman
•
15.6K Posts
•
45K Points
0
October 21st, 2014 15:00
Shocking with the multitude of avast f/p's :emotion-14:
I do encounter some --- but quite rarely. And almost without exception, they're categorized as "Win32:Evo-Gen", which is a heuristic detection (and therefore, inherently less-reliable). I'd be curious to learn how many of the 120 avast f/p's fell into that category.
joe53
2 Intern
•
5.8K Posts
•
17.3K Points
0
October 21st, 2014 20:00
Ask and ye shall receive:
http://www.av-comparatives.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/avc_fps_201409_en.pdf
Indeed, most of these FPs for avast! were Win32: Evo-gen or Win32:Malware-gen detections. Mostly for obscure software packages I never heard of.
There is a take-home lesson here: don't run on-demand scans when all is well with your system, unless you are comfortable with handling FP detections.