Passed:
Agnitum,AhnLab,Alwil,AVG,Eset,Fortinet,FRISK,Kingsoft,McAfee,Microsoft Forefront,Norman,Rising,Sophos,Symantec,AEC (Trustport) and VirusBuster.
Failed:
ArcaBit,Avira,CA eTrust,F-Secure,Kaspersky,MicroWorld,Quick Heal and Redstone.
Good job alwil ;D ;D
Do you have a link?
Is this the one that VB tested the AV programs using Windows Server 2008?
and this…
Hey people… Avira, F-Secure, Kaspersky… big ones failing ;D
Question, what’s different that when these AV programs are tested on Windows Home Server 2008 versus standard platform OS like Vista or XP, they fail? I wonder if it’s the testing methodology. I saw something that looked like Avira failed due to 1 false positive. If so, that’s a pretty tough standard given how easier it can be to have false positives these days.
Rules… rules… The price of a high detection rate (even on marketing field) is a false positive target…
Question, what’s different that when these AV programs are tested on Windows Home Server 2008 versus standard platform OS like Vista or XP, they fail? I wonder if it’s the testing methodology. I saw something that looked like Avira failed due to 1 false positive. If so, that’s a pretty tough standard given how easier it can be to have false positives these days.
[/quote]
if i remember correctly if enterprise / networked product exist for server platform then that one is used instead usual ‘desktop’ ones …
Before putting avast! on a pedestal, let’s not forget avast!'s 47 false positives in the latest AV-Comparatives test compared with Avira’s 17. Besides, just count the threads on the first page of this forum; I can spot 3 about FPs at the time of this writing.
I’m not doing that… I’m the first to complain about lower detection rates, I’m the first to complain about false positives… but, there is a but, when avast wins people say “calm down”, when it loses, well, people blame… It isn’t fair also.
Perhaps that’s because it’s true. Have you considered that?
I’m not saying that avast! is a bad product, but personally I wouldn’t call passing VB100% a win.
As avast is the nr 1 antivirus program for me on my computers, avast is always on the pedestal here…even with false positives 
But of course, the pedestal looks better without false positives 
It’s not truth… people say what they heard last week or, worse, read yesterday. I’m not putting avast in a pedestal, I won’t blame avast. I’d rather be realist and fair. I have already considerer what you’re saying… I’m not a fan boy.
I think it’s a win, not of a war, but a single battle win.
And you’re so sure of that because?
At the very least, I don’t think avast!'s 47 FPs is hearsay.
Because I know avast, because I use it from 5 years, because I’ve participated in this forum quite a long time, because I heard what people said about avast without even knowing it, because I heard what people said about security, antivirus, freewares, etc.
I’m not defending avast false positives. Just saying that should be the temporary price to pay in order to improve the generic signatures and enhance detection.
That’s getting quite close to hubris - if you’re not there already. Just because you’ve used a product for five years doesn’t mean everyone else is wrong and are basing their claims on hearsay.
Nope, you’re just labeling the people who point out the FP problem as being unfair.
Remember that I’m not talking about your judgment, but about the other users that I heard and that I know how much they know about antivirus, security, avast, etc. I’m judging the facts I live and know, I’m not hubring.
Nope either… People who ask for false positive correction is welcome, they’re helping improving the program… I can’t even imagine where you can read unfairness in my behavior.