Avc fdt 201209_en

Anti-Virus Comparative

File Detection Test
of Malicious Software
includes false alarm test

Language: English
September 2012

Last Revision: 5th October 2012

www.av-comparatives.org

Anti-Virus Comparative - File Detection Test - September 2012 www.av-comparatives.org

Table of Contents

Tested Products 3

Conditions for participation and test methodology 4

Tested product versions 4

Comments 5

Graph of missed samples 6

Results 8

False positive/alarm test 9

Award levels reached in this test 10

Copyright and Disclaimer 11

-2-


Tested Products

 AhnLab V3 Internet Security 8.0  G DATA AntiVirus 2013
 avast! Free Antivirus 7.0  GFI Vipre Antivirus 2012
 AVG Anti-Virus 2012  Kaspersky Anti-Virus 2013
 AVIRA Antivirus Premium 2012  McAfee AntiVirus Plus 2012
 BitDefender Antivirus Plus 2013  Microsoft Security Essentials 4.0
 BullGuard Antivirus 12  Panda Cloud Free Antivirus 2.0.0
 eScan Anti-Virus 11.0  PC Tools Spyware Doctor with AV 9.0
 ESET NOD32 Antivirus 5.2  Sophos Anti-Virus 10.0
 F-Secure Anti-Virus 2012  Trend Micro Titanium AntiVirus+ 2013
 Fortinet FortiClient Lite 4.3  Webroot SecureAnywhere AV 8.0

-3-


Conditions for participation and test methodology

The conditions for participation in our tests are listed in the methodology document at
http://www.av-comparatives.org/seiten/ergebnisse/methodology.pdf. Before proceeding with this
report, readers are advised to first read the above-mentioned document. The participation is limited
to not more than 20 international well-known Anti-Virus products, which vendors agreed to get tested
and included in the public test-series of 2012.

Tested Product Versions

The Malware sets have been frozen the 21st August 2012 and consisted of 240859 sample variants. The
products were updated on the 28th August 2012. The following twenty up-to-date products were
included in this public test (most current ones available at time of testing):

 AhnLab V3 Internet Security 8.0.6.13  G DATA AntiVirus 23.0.3.2
 avast! Free Antivirus 7.0.1466  GFI Vipre Antivirus 5.0.5162
 AVG Anti-Virus 2012.0.2197  Kaspersky Anti-Virus 13.0.1.4190
 AVIRA Antivirus Premium 12.0.0.1183  McAfee AntiVirus Plus 11.6.385
 Bitdefender Anti-Virus+ 16.18.0.1406  Microsoft Security Essentials 4.0.1526.0
 BullGuard Antivirus 12.0.231  Panda Cloud Free Antivirus 2.0.0
 eScan Anti-Virus 11.0.1139.1225  PC Tools Spyware Doctor with Antivirus 9.0.0.2308
 ESET NOD32 Antivirus 5.2.9.12  Sophos Anti-Virus 10.0.8
 F-Secure Anti-Virus 12.56.100  Trend Micro Titanium AntiVirus Plus 6.0.1215
 Fortinet FortiClient Lite 4.3.5.472  Webroot SecureAnywhere AV 8.0.1.233

Please try the products1 on your own system before making a purchase decision based on these tests.
There are also some other program features and important factors (e.g. price, ease of
use/management, compatibility, graphical user interface, language, support, etc.) to consider.
Although very important, the file detection rate of a product is only one aspect of a complete Anti-
Virus product. AV-Comparatives provides also a whole product dynamic “real-world” protection test, as
well as other test reports which cover different aspects/features of the products.

We invite users to look at our other tests and not only at this type of test. This is to make users aware
of other types of tests and reports that we are providing already since several years, like e.g. our
Whole-Product “Real-World” Protection Test. A good file detection rate is still one of the most
important, deterministic and reliable features of an Anti-Virus product. Additionally, most products
provide at least some kind of functionalities to block (or at least warn about the possibility of)
malicious actions e.g. during the execution of malware, when all other on-access and on-demand
detection/protection mechanism failed (these protection features are evaluated in other types of tests
that we provide on our website).

1
Information about used additional third-party engines/signatures inside the products: Bullguard, eScan and
F-Secure are based on the BitDefender engine. G DATA is based on the Avast and Bitdefender engines. PC Tools
is using the signatures of Symantec.

-4-


Most products run with highest settings by default. Certain products switch to highest settings
automatically when malware is found. This makes it impossible to test against various malware with
real “default” settings. In order to get comparable results we set the few remaining products to
highest settings or leave them to lower settings - in accordance with the respective vendors. We
kindly ask vendors to provide stronger settings by default, i.e. set their default settings to highest
levels of detection, esp. for scheduled scans or scans initiated by the user. This is usually already the
case for on-access scans and/or on-execution scans. We allow the remaining vendors (which do not
use highest settings in on-demand scans) to choose to be tested with higher setting as they e.g. use
in on-access/on-execution higher settings by default. So the results of the file detection test are
closer to the usage in the field. We ask vendors to remove paranoid settings inside the user interface
which are too high to be ever of any benefit for common users. Below are some notes about the
settings used (scan all files, scan archives, etc. is being enabled), e.g.:

AVG, AVIRA: asked to do not enable/consider the informational warnings of packers as detections.
So, we did not count them as detections (neither on the malware set, nor on the clean set).

F-Secure, Sophos: asked to get tested and awarded based on their default settings (i.e. without using
their advanced heuristics / suspicious detections setting).

AVIRA, Kaspersky: asked to get tested with heuristic set to high/advanced.

Several products make use of cloud technologies, which require an active internet connection. Our
tests are performed using an active internet connection. Users should be aware that detection rates
may be in some cases drastically lower if the scan is performed while offline (or when the cloud is
unreachable for various reasons). The cloud should be considered as an additional benefit/feature to
increase detection rates (as well as response times and false alarm suppression) and not as a full
replacement for local offline detections. Vendors should make sure that users are warned in case that
the connectivity to the cloud gets lost e.g. during a scan, which may affect considerably the provided
protection and make e.g. an initiated scan useless.

The used test-set has been built consulting telemetry data in attempt to include prevalent samples
from the last weeks/months which are/were hitting users in the field. We applied a clustering method
to classify similar files (one sample - the most prevalent one - per variant). This allows us to evaluate
prevalent similar samples and reducing the size of the set without introducing bias. Therefore, each
miss is intended to represent one missed group/variant of files. As we used even more recent malware
samples and even more prevalent samples than previously, the size of test-set is even smaller (and
should be easier to get discovered/detected by AV products).

As usual, all test results have been peer-verified before publishing. We also include crosschecks e.g.
checking cloud connectivity from different IPs, service providers, countries, using various product
licenses, changing test environment and related variables, testing over a period of time, etc.
Furthermore, we sometimes provide random sets of samples to other trusted independent labs to let
them check if the product behaves the same and if they get the same results as we do.

-5-


The malware detection rates are grouped by the testers after looking at the clusters build with the
hierarchal clustering method. By using clusters, there are no fixed thresholds to reach, as the
thresholds change based on the results. The testers may group the clusters rationally and not rely
solely on the clusters, to avoid that if e.g. all products would in future score badly, they do not get
high rankings anyway. As we reduced also the clean set, we updated also the awarding system, as
some products manage to get way too false alarms even in the reduced clean set. We are still
evaluating whether to apply clusters also for the FP ranges or to set next year the threshold for
“Many” at 11 instead 16.

Detection Rate Clusters/Groups
(given by the testers after consulting statistical methods)
4 3 2 1
Very few (0-2 FP’s)
TESTED STANDARD ADVANCED ADVANCED+
Few (3-15 FP’s)

Many (16-50 FP’s) TESTED TESTED STANDARD ADVANCED

Very many (51-100 FP’s) TESTED TESTED TESTED STANDARD

Crazy many (over 100 FP’s) TESTED TESTED TESTED TESTED

Graph of missed samples (lower is better)

Even if we deliver various tests and show different aspects of Anti-Virus software, users are advised to
evaluate the software by themselves and build their own opinion about them. Test data or reviews
just provide guidance to some aspects that users cannot evaluate by themselves. We suggest and
encourage readers to research also other independent test results provided by various well-known and
established independent testing organizations, in order to get a better overview about the detection
and protection capabilities of the various products over different test scenarios and various test-sets.

-6-


Results

Please consider also the false alarm rates when looking at the below file detection rates2.

Total detection rates (clustered in groups):
1. G DATA 99.9%
2. AVIRA 99.8%
3. Panda, Trend Micro 99.6%
4. F-Secure 99.3%
5. Kaspersky, BitDefender, 99.2%
BullGuard, Fortinet, eScan
6. McAfee 98.8%
7. Sophos 98.7%
8. Avast 98.6%
9. GFI Vipre 98.5%
10. AVG 98.0%
11. ESET 97.4%
12. AhnLab 95.6%
13. Microsoft 94.9%
14. PC Tools 94.4%
15. Webroot below 80%3

The used test-set contained around 240000 recent/prevalent samples from last weeks/months.

Hierarchical Cluster Analysis

This dendogram shows the results
of the cluster analysis4. It
indicates at what level of
similarity the clusters are joined.
The red drafted line defines the
level of similarity. Each
intersection indicates a group (in
this case four groups).

2
We estimate the remaining error margin on the final percentages to be below 0.2%
3
Results and misses have been confirmed with several tests and also by the vendor. Even two weeks after the
test-date, the detection rate was still lower than 80%. Also a representative set of misses was sent for peer-
review to an independent party.
4
For more information about cluster analysis, see e.g. this easy to understand tutorial:
http://strata.uga.edu/software/pdf/clusterTutorial.pdf

-7-


False positive/alarm test
In order to better evaluate the quality of the file detection capabilities (distinguish good files from
malicious files) of anti-virus products, we provide a false alarm test. False alarms can sometimes cause
as much troubles as a real infection. Please consider the false alarm rate when looking at the
detection rates, as a product which is prone to cause false alarms achieves higher scores easier. All
discovered false alarms were reported/sent to the respective Anti-Virus vendors and should by now
have been fixed.

False Positive Results

Number of false alarms found in our set of clean files (lower is better):
1. Microsoft 0 very few FPs
2. ESET 4
3. Kaspersky 5
4. Trend Micro 7
5. AVIRA, BitDefender, BullGuard 10 few FP’s
6. Avast, Fortinet 11
7. McAfee 12
8. eScan 14
9. F-secure, PC Tools 15
10. Sophos 19
11. AhnLab, Panda 20
12. G DATA 23 many FP’s
13. GFI Vipre 34
14. AVG 36
15. Webroot 210 crazy many FP’s

Details about the discovered false alarms (including their assumed prevalence) can be seen in a
separate report available at: http://www.av-comparatives.org/images/docs/avc_fps_201209_en.pdf

-8-


Award levels reached in this test

AV-Comparatives provides a ranking award. As this report contains also the raw detection rates and
not only the awards, expert users that e.g. do not care about false alarms can rely on that score alone
if they want to.

AWARDS PRODUCTS
(based on detection rates and false alarms)
 AVIRA
 Trend Micro
 F-Secure
 Kaspersky
 BitDefender
 BullGuard
 eScan
 McAfee
 Avast

 G DATA*
 Panda*
 Fortinet*
 Sophos*
 GFI Vipre*
 ESET

 AVG*
 Microsoft
 PC Tools

 AhnLab*
 Webroot

*: those products got lower awards due to false alarms

The Awards are not only based on detection rates - also False Positives found in our set of clean files
are considered. On page 6 of this report you can see how awards are being given.

A product that is successful at detecting a high percentage of malicious files but suffers from false
alarms may not be necessarily better than a product which detects less malicious files but which
generates less false alarms.

-9-


Copyright and Disclaimer

This publication is Copyright © 2012 by AV-Comparatives e.V. ®. Any use of the results, etc. in whole
or in part, is ONLY permitted after the explicit written agreement of the management board of AV-
Comparatives e.V., prior to any publication. AV-Comparatives e.V. and its testers cannot be held liable
for any damage or loss, which might occur as result of, or in connection with, the use of the
information provided in this paper. We take every possible care to ensure the correctness of the basic
data, but a liability for the correctness of the test results cannot be taken by any representative of
AV-Comparatives e.V. We do not give any guarantee of the correctness, completeness, or suitability
for a specific purpose of any of the information/content provided at any given time. No one else
involved in creating, producing or delivering test results shall be liable for any indirect, special or
consequential damage, or loss of profits, arising out of, or related to, the use or inability to use, the
services provided by the website, test documents or any related data. AV-Comparatives e.V. is a
registered Austrian Non-Profit-Organization.

For more information about AV-Comparatives and the testing methodologies, please visit our website.

AV-Comparatives e.V. (October 2012)

- 10 -


Advertisement

- 11 -

Avc fdt 201209_en

More Related Content

What's hot (16)

Viewers also liked (6)

Similar to Avc fdt 201209_en (20)

Avc fdt 201209_en