F-Secure achieves 7th place out of 21 Security vendors; 99.4% successfully blocked; http://www.av-comparatives.org/factsheet-real-world-protection-test-october-2013/
"The results are based on the test set of 527 live test cases (malicious URLs found in the field),
consisting of working exploits (i.e. drive-by downloads), URLs pointing directly to malware, and a few
malicious files from email attachments. The latter are downloaded and executed via webmail. Thus
exactly the same infection vectors are used as a typical user would experience in everyday life. The
test-cases used cover a wide range of current malicious sites and provide insights into the protection
given by the various products (using all their protection features) while surfing the web. "
"We would like to point out that while some products were able to reach 100% protection rates in a
test, it does not mean that these products will always protect against all threats on the web. It just
means that they were able to block 100% of the widespread malicious samples used in a test".
Panda seem to have come up in the world. I've long thought of them as a rather low budget product. Nice to see F-Secure one step ahead of Bitdefender for a change. :)
panda , eset above f secure. i doubt it.
also bitdefender has been placed 8th.
results are changing every month. i am suspicious of these results.
"results are changing every month. i am suspicious of these results."
If you look carefully at the individual test results then they are pretty consistent within each test category e.g.. Real-world testing/Antiphishing/file detection tests/heuristic/behavioural tests.
The file detection tests for example are a strong point of F-Secure and Bitdefender and they always score very well here in this static on-demand test; Eset not too good in comparison;
And F-Secure has been consistent in these tests; apart from a slight blip in 2009.
In contrast, the Real-World Protection tests assess different criteria and a lot more features than the simple file-detection tests. The security products are put to the test by downloading genuine malware, willingly causing infections through websites, e-mails, etc. to see how their protection components work together and the different concepts implemented by their manufacturers (signature scan, website blocker, behavior blocker, cloud scans, heuristics, firewalls…) are evaluated in an objective manner.
Again F-Secure's results have been pretty consistent.
"panda , eset above f secure. i doubt it. Also bitdefender has been placed 8th".
The results for Panda and Eset are not really a surprise as their recent versions have shown big improvements. Panda has "new anti-exploit technology" and Eset 7 has a new exploit blocker, both of which helped in this test.
BitDefender has scored below Panda and Eset in this one test but it has a pretty consistent record overall in the real-world tests;
Overall, the results from av-comparatives are IMO, consistent but I would not choose a security program from the results of one test or one site. I tend to look at a variety of sites including
1.- AV comparatives (real-world protection test... etc)
4- Dennis Technology Labs
5- MRG Effitas Online Banking project
Then I install and check the performance of the AV/IS suite; I do not want to see any marked slowdowns in my working.
But an Antivirus/Internet security Suite is not my primary line of defense; an AV is part of a layered protection layer (with AppGuard), Image backup and making sure that my OS/programs are up to-date and patched.
But for now F-Secure seems to be doing okay in most of the testing sites; now if they could improve their results with the banking malware tests!
This topic has been closed due to inactivity. If you would like to discuss this topic further, please start a new post.
You can reference this topic in your post by adding this link:
Visit the Community
Check our Forums or How-to & FAQs for advice or answers
View User Guides
Refer to our getting started guides and product manuals
Talk to our Support and get answers to your questions