Report from www.computerbild.de in Germany (just out)
Eight Internet Security packages tested...ONLY FOUR PASSED...

Place 1. Kaspersky Internet Security 6
Place 2. Norton Internet Security 2007
Place 3. G Data Internet Security 2007
Place 4. Panda Internet Security 2007

FAILED F-Secure Internet Security 2007 (but see the notes below)
FAILED CA Internet Security Suite 2007
FAILED McAfee Internet Security Suite 2007
FAILED Bitdefender Internet Security 2007

Lowest impact on resources/speed: Kaspersky and Symantec
Fastest update reactions: Kaspersky and G-Data
Highest detection rate: F-Secure(!) and Kaspersky
Cheapest: Kaspersky and F-Secure

F-Secure and Bitdefender failed mainly because of conflicts and unreliable "detections" ...leading to various messy software problems.

Anyway...well worth checking out is the cool free stuff which works maybe just as well and can be changed easily, because as some hackers will admit, the big names are the ones they generally target...looking for weaknesses to exploit such as the a "hole"in the Symantec Antivirus Corporate Edition, and the infection of Blackice firewalls with the Witty Worm.

EDIT Double posted
Damned gremlins (must be that cheap security suite!)

I suppose a nice Open Source anti-virus program would be worth looking into, because any issues could be fixed very quickly by the community.

Do you have anything to back this up, or is it just what you think ?

I have used it to fix problems on other peoples computers where the 'pay' AV could not. Also because its OSS and has many people helping it often has the fastest update of 'new in the wild' sigs sometimes 3 or 4 times a day.

If you use it with WinPooch (also open) it can do as much, if not more than all other AV because you can fine tune it very well.

Here and Here. They agreed to be tested by AV-Comparatives then backed out right before the test. Read the last post Here.

You have proof of this ?

Well no more than I understand how OSS works and I can update the ClamWin scanner 3 or 4 times a day and it will download new signatures that have been compiled by different people... and from ClamWin site 'ClamWin shares the virus database with ClamAV and it is updated several times a day'.

I also see none of the problems that others (in the links you have provided) have seen, and no false flagging of everything (or anything) in archives. But then I am using ClamWin (based on Clam AV) I also use win 2000 so will not have the security problems XP users see and I use it with Win Pooch so I have all the things that Clam AV does not like real time file scanning thats rule based, an is able to scan the files that other programs open and use among the many other things it adds.

I cant find anything about the backing out if the tests, in fact then state in their forums that they were never asked, and the AVC people say that they will allow them in the next round of tests, but then talks about 'being asked by companies to remove the results'.
IMO if that was the clam* people that would have been said, Clam* also say in an open forum in May 2006 that they welcome all tests (something IIRC has been on the web site for many years), its also open source and as such not owned by any company 'per se', and TBH from what I have read it looks like the AVC does not like the software or something and is trying to put people off he offer no answers to question and just gives double speak.

AVG 7.5 is purdy lookin' - I'd use it instead of any other that ain't so purdy

Lenny_Nero, did you read the last post in that link ? Inspector Clouseau is one of (if not the best) AV guy's in the world, he doesn't lie or mislead, he tells it like it is on many occasions.

Now, what about the AV test that show ClamAV/ClamWin with less than steller detection ?

As for the pulling out of test, you can see in This Thread post #1, #48, #51, #91 and explained in #92.

Now if as you say the Clams will be in the next test, good, we get to see how they are

Well if you used this method deciding between ClamAV, maybe it works

Clam results would have been showed by AV-Comparatives if Clam would have give us the written permission to test them and to publish the results. We do not test any software without the written agreement/permission.
I thought they would give me the permission (as Clam said in a forum they would welcome it ), but as ClamAV did change their decision and finally not gave the written ok, ClamWin retired the permission.
Anyway, there is a test done by another tester (av-test.de) which shows where Clam is ranked more or less: http://hoax-info.de/av/xref0906table.html (http://hoax-info.de/av/xref0906.html).
maybe this explains something

I would like to see some more detail in English.
I have used F-secure for 5 years and even though it worked well as far as firewall and AV goes, it does have incompatibilities with Backweb progsand others.
I have now used Bitdefender Int Security 10(2007) for a month and I also seems to have problems with some other progs and has messed up some things that always worked before.
IS THERE MORE SPECIFIC DETAIL ON BITDEFENDERS CONFLICTS AND INCOMPATIBILITIES ?

thanks
moen

I have read on/in a Clam* web site (I am using the term Clam* as I use ClamWin not ClamAV but as I understand they use the same detection engine and I have read so many sites and links over the last few days I cant remember which ones are which) that they dont use the very old sigs so far out of date to not be viable, now I 'spose that could count for the low score, if you are testing a scanner that will scan for every sig ever, against one that just uses the ones that are needed i.e. in the wild for the last few years, then I could see some correlation in the low scores, and also what makes it that much faster that the others I have used.

I did read the Clouseau post, that was why I said that I had never seen any of the problems he says it has, and I thought that there had not been a test with it but he says that it rates so bad, but then he does have his own product to sell.

I also could not find on the F-Prot site a lists of the commercial and non commercial support that F-Prot has like http://www.clamav.net/commercial.html I would have thought if all of those companies are using this AV that 'sucks' so much for the desktop (not my words, his) then there would be a lot more problems with it.

All I can say is I use it on computers connected to the interweeb 24/7 (and they are not kept updated to the last second) and have not ever had any viral problems since running it, but then I must just be lucky.

I will be asking the ClamWin and ClamAV people why they did not want this tested with the others... if that really is the case, unless the e-mail (or what ever) wants to be posted ?

Anything with the word CLAM in it should not be in the same sentence as Virus. Blech!

Bad Clams! Doh!

Inspector Clouseau doesn't say things to promote his product, as a matter of fact he says things about other AV's including his own in order to set the record straight. Many times he's defended other AV's when someone said something that wasn't true, he's also recommended other AV's that do a nice job.

Inspector Clouseau is one of the rare true experts that visit regular forums, with regular people like us. Gives us info and helps the regular Joe understand what he's up against, seperates BS from fact.

He just recently joined F-Prot, before that he was the NOD32-God

I guess if every AV was like this it'd be easy for virus writers, instead of new virus they could just use the old one's. And who's job is it to decide what virus are still floating around ?

As Inspector Clouseau and IBK pointed out, Clam is mainly AV for mail servers, yes they work towards desktop but main interest is for what goes through the mail would be my guess.

Lenny_Nero, I'm not telling you what AV to use, thats your decision. I just reacted to the "what security/crypto will tell you"

AVG Free should be enough for anyone, but if your paranoid (like me) you can use Kaspersky, which is without a doubt the best protection availible, bar none.

Use that, along side AdAware SE, Ewido, Spybot and some online scans like trend micro, whilst using the firefox browser with adblock extension/noscript/adblock plus and you'll say goodbye to viruses... :-)

@ deanimator
I have now used Bitdefender Int Security 10(2007) for a month and I also seems to have problems with some other progs and has messed up some things that always worked before.
Are there more specific detail onBitdefender conflicts ?

I´m no expert but I don´t recall the report being very specific.
One interesting point is that the G-Data package combines Bitdefender with Kaspersky - probably set up differently which might explain why no conflicts were reported, but interestingly in this test, and I think some others, the Kaspersky suite alone "performed" best.
Remember that the test factors everything including price when the rankings are decided.
Maybe I can find out something more...but don´t hold your breath.

By the way, I depend on the Free AVG 7.5, combined with Zone-Alarm, Ad-Aware or SpyBot run daily, and a couple of other check-ups from time to time.

@moen

If you go into the BitDefender folder and look at the readme it should list known conflicts.

What problems are you having ?

this is what BD 10 says in the read me

One more point, according to the computerbild article (in German), Bitdefender was not able to manage viruses in the Outlook Express inbox, although they claimed to be able to do it.

Thanks

My vote also goes with NOD32, I have been using it for over a year now and gotten my family and most of my friends switched over.

None of us have gotten any type of virus since.

With daily updates and very low footprint it is hard to beat. I find it disturbing that NOD32 is left out of many of the reviews and comparisons I have read since I switched.

It really is great anti-virus program.

On the free side AVG Free IMHO is the only way to go.

1st, he may not, but he does a lot to slam others, with quotes like see you in hell then and sucks for the desktop.

If you were really replying to "what security/crypto will tell you" then you would have agreed with me because it is a well known fact that most if not all security and crypto people will tell you that open code is the safe way to go as everybody can see the code and how strong it is. It stems from (well this was what I was told) the stories about PGP and that all versions after 5 had a backdoor in it that the gov types (term used for people in charge and the like) could get into the stuff easy. PGP were asked and said no, the code was disassembled and it was seen that there was the door, so this is the reason for GPG open and thus no one is in control of the code to be told put in a back door, and every body can tell if it is as the code is open.

Just look at windows vs *nix, closed and open. Which one is more secure as default ?

When code is closed only honest people dont look at it else we would not have cracked code and I could not disassemble anything I wanted to. That is why most of the really big sellers in the AV game get 0wned, its not worth going for one that only gets 10% or one that will be fixed the next day because of so many sets of eyes looking at it.

Hello Lenny_Nero

Now you're generalizing...

Not all open source is good. Not all open source is safe. Not all open source "will be fixed the next day because of so many sets of eyes looking at it"

ClamAV doesn't have good detection compaired to the other AV's, unless you or the "security/crypto" boy's can prove otherwise, this remains fact.

Now Lenny how safe are you ? you fear most that KAV, NOD32, AntiVir 'might' have a coded backdoor ? Does that fear override the "fact" that thousand of virus/trojan/spyware can attack you because you lack detection ?

If open source is so full of truth, you tell the Clam boys to let IBK test and publish the results. If that happens you can be sure that'll have "many sets of eyes looking at it"

I dunno. I like Open Source for a lot of reasons, but don't think it is the end-all be-all either. Great programs like AVG, Utorrent, Maxthon, CCleaner and others seem to do a fine job being free but closed-source. But things like NeoOffice for the Mac would not be possible without Open Office being Open Source, I believe. I'm not going to bash a product just because it's closed source, or praise a product because it is. I think Utorrent is by far a better product than Azureus, for example, even though Azureus is Open Source.

When all is said and done, I'm just happy that we have lots of free apps out there.

BeardedKirklander, I agree

I hope Lenny knows I wasn't bashing open source (nor him), I was being specific, not general.