Our first review of Linux Security products is now available! You can find the Linux Security Review here http://www.av-comparatives.org/linux-reviews/

The March 2015 file detection test report has been released. As usual, please read carefully the whole test report. You can find it on our website. The False Alarm lists are here.

We released the Mobile Protection Test report. It can be found here: http://www.av-comparatives.org/mobile-security/

Below you can find the Archive of AV-C Tests/Reviews 2004-2014 as PDF reports. For tests and reviews of the current year, please visit www.av-comparatives.org

Real-World Protection Tests
2014b, 2014a, 2013b, 2013a, 2012b, 2012a, 2011b, 2011a, 2010, 2009

File Detection Tests
2014b, 2014a, 2013b, 2013a, 2012b, 2012a, 2011b, 2011a, 2010b, 2010a, 2009b, 2009a, 2008b, 2008a, 2007b, 2007a, 2006b, 2006a, 2005b, 2005a, 2004b, 2004a

Behavioural Tests
2014, 2013, 2012

False Alarm Tests
2014b, 2014a, 2013b, 2013a, 2012b, 2012a, 2011b, 2011a, 2010b, 2010a, 2009

Performance Tests
2014b, 2014a, 2013b, 2013a, 2012b, 2012a, 2011b, 2011a, 2010b, 2010a, 2009, 2008

Malware Removal Tests
2014, 2013, 2012, 2011, 2009

Anti-Phishing Tests
2013, 2012, 2011

Mac Security Reviews / Tests
2014, 2013, 2012

Mobile Security Reviews / Tests
2014, 2013, 2012, 2011, 2010

Business Security Reviews
2014, 2013, 2012, 2011, 2010, 2009

Firewall Reviews / Tests
2014

Parental Control Reviews / Tests
2014

Summary Reports
2014, 2013, 2012, 2011, 2010, 2009, 2008, 2007, 2006

Surveys
2014, 2013, 2012, 2011

Heuristic Tests
2011b, 2011a, 2010b, 2010a, 2009b, 2009a, 2008b, 2008a, 2007b, 2007a, 2006b, 2006a, 2005b, 2005a, 2004b, 2004a

PUA Tests
2010, 2009, 2006

These Microsoft-prevalence-based analysis reports are supplementary to AV-Comparatives’ main reports, already published, of the September 2013 and March 2014 File-Detection Tests. No additional testing has been performed; rather, the existing test results have been re-analysed from a different perspective, to consider what impact the missed samples are likely to have on customers, according to telemetry data of Microsoft.

AV-Comparatives is now an ISO certified testing body. We received the approval and ISO certification from the auditors of TÜV Austria for our “Independent Tests of Anti-Virus Software”.

We have released a study of data transmission in Internet security products. Many Internet users are concerned about who has access to their personal information and what is done with it. After revelations by Edward Snowden regarding the extent of eavesdropping by the US-American NSA, users have become increasingly aware of privacy issues. Computer security software has legitimate grounds for sending its makers some information about the system it’s running on; in particular, details of malware found on the machine have to be sent to the manufacturer in order to protect the user effectively. however, this does not mean that a program should have carte blanche to send any and all personal information found on a computer to the manufacturer (other than with the specific knowledge and agreement of the system’s owner). This report gives some insight into data-sending by popular security programs.

Clearly, antivirus manufacturers have to comply with the laws of the countries in which they are established. In the event of e.g. a court order requiring the vendor to provide information about a customer, the company has no choice but to do this. However, this should be the only reason for providing user data to a third party. Some companies do not state that they will only pass on customer information in such circumstances.

This report was initially requested and commissioned by PCgo and PC Magazin Germany.

http://www.av-comparatives.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/avc_datasending_2014_en.pdf

We compared the built-in anti-phishing protection of several popular web browsers (Opera, Microsoft Internet Explorer, Google Chrome, Apple Safari, Mozilla Firefox). You can find the report here.

As announced publicly several times already last year, AV-Comparatives provides since 2008 its services for a fee. The fee is NOT for the tests itself, but for the various services we provide (bug reports, usage of our material/logos for reprint and marketing material, getting sample lists, getting false alarms after the public tests, internal services, etc.). Vendors are not obligated to pay for the FULL-service-package, and if a vendor e.g. prefers to do not get all services, the fee is lower. All major testers get paid for the services they provide, this is a common practice. Of course, the fee has no influence at all on the results and is to cover our expenses and time involved.
For users and magazines the public results are free of charge, as long the source is given. If we have time and e.g. a magazine wants us to make an additional work/test of e.g. products that are not already tested, this costs some money which has to be covered by the magazine (only for the service provided to the magazine; the vendor of the tested product will not get any service).

For those that did not already read this info on our website:
Starting from 2008, AV-Comparatives will – like most other testers do – no longer provide its services for free, as the expenses for the site and all the work involved are too high. The vendors will not pay for the big tests itselfs (and it has of course no influence of any kind on the test results or award system) – the participation fee includes e.g. the usage of the reached award for marketing purposes and other services (like getting false positives and missed malware after the tests, bug reports, etc.). The number of participants will be limited to about 18 vendors.