• All Community
    • All Community
    • Forums
    • Ideas
    • Blogs
Advanced

Not what you are looking for? Ask the experts!

Kudos0

Anti-malware lab test

here is the  link of the new test conducted with various security suits..

http://www.anti-malware-test.com/?q=node/76

Genuine Windows 8.1 x64 Pro; NIS 2014; HP Pavallion G6 Notebook with AMD Core 2 Quad A10; 6 GB RAM; ; 1TB Western Digital HDD, AMD Radeon 2.5 GB Graphics Card

Replies

Kudos0

Re: Anti-malware lab test

here is the  link of the new test conducted with various security suits..

http://www.anti-malware-test.com/?q=node/76

Genuine Windows 8.1 x64 Pro; NIS 2014; HP Pavallion G6 Notebook with AMD Core 2 Quad A10; 6 GB RAM; ; 1TB Western Digital HDD, AMD Radeon 2.5 GB Graphics Card
Kudos0

Re: Anti-malware lab test

This test also , in the later part , shows that detection rate must be improved.

Overall detection rate of Norton was 90.9% ,which is among the goods.....but if KIS or other products can achieve 99.7% ,then there

definitely is scope for improvements.

Surprised to see that Mcafee with or without Artemis was not included in the test !!!!!!

Kudos0

Re: Anti-malware lab test

I totally agree, even if I'm impressed that Norton would detect 52% of the threats without a single FP. One FP can still be one FP too much - it could do real harm or atleast create extra work for the user. That's not saying it's the greatest achievement. I definitely want to see Norton detect a higher percentage (while keeping the same quality, obviously...). Those 90.9% absolutely need to be improved. If that was on AV-Comparatives, it would be a really bad result actually, and still is comparing to others and most importantly the malware missing in that detection rate.Message Edited by RavenMacDaddy on 03-17-2009 07:06 PM

This thread is closed from further comment. Please visit the forum to start a new thread.