AntiVirus Detection Rate Thread

[John]

Originally posted by: Schadenfroh

Originally posted by: Smilin

Originally posted by: Smilin
Wait a second. What the hell does this mean:

The 174770 virus samples were chosen using VS2000 according to Kaspersky, F-Prot, Nod32, Dr.Web, BitDefender and McAfee antivirus programs.

???

???

Anyone?

Poor translation maybe?

Read the third sentence in my OP and then go to the link for additional comments.

 

[WT]

Schad, I honestly never made sense of the OneCare backup utility. I went through the available options, tried it one time and it so reminded me of the old W2K Backup utility (select your folders/files) that I decided it was just too tedious for my liking. I run all of my rigs with a similar partition setup - four partitions (Windows/Games/Music/Downloads) on each drive so I know proper file management technique, but to further pick out individual folders for backup to a remote network location was not worthwhile.
The Windows Home Server was exactly what I wanted, to the point where if a drive went belly up, I simply slapped another drive in the PC (had to match as far as SATA to SATA, or PATA to PATA, but size was irrelevant) and had it do a full restore. It would create a boot CD based on the onboard controller and recreate a drive as easy as that.

Now, that sounds great in theory .. but I haven't actually TRIED it yet .....

 

[wahoyaho]

yup yup, kaspersky is what i've ben using for about 2 years best antivir i've used, didn't know they had a v7 beta out, must get it

 

[Smilin]

Originally posted by: John

Originally posted by: Schadenfroh

Originally posted by: Smilin

Originally posted by: Smilin
Wait a second. What the hell does this mean:

The 174770 virus samples were chosen using VS2000 according to Kaspersky, F-Prot, Nod32, Dr.Web, BitDefender and McAfee antivirus programs.

???

???

Anyone?

Poor translation maybe?

Read the third sentence in my OP and then go to the link for additional comments.

The additional comments is the same place where I pulled that quote from.

I'm not really following how they chose what viruses to test. It looks like Kaspersky, F-Prot, Nod32, Dr.Web, BitDefender and McAfee were somehow involved which may explain why they are all in the 90s. I'm not sure if I'm misreading it.

 

[Schadenfroh]

Just a heads up,

Kaspersky AntiVirus 6 is now FREE after MiR.

 

[John]

New Virus Bulletin VB100 Results - June 2007

Windows XP - June 2007


Passed:

-AEC (Trustport)
Result history: AEC (Trustport)
Product name: AEC Trustport Workstation Antivirus 2.5.0.970


-Alwil
Result history: Alwil
Product name: Alwil avast! v.4.7 Professional Edition


-Authentium
Result history: Authentium
Product name: Authentium Command AntiVirus for Windows 4.94.5


-Avira
Result history: Avira
Product name: Avira AntiVir


-Bullguard
Result history: Bullguard
Product name: Bullguard v.7.0


-CA Home
Result history: CA Home
Product name: CA AntiVirus 8.4.0.11


-CA eTrust
Result history: CA eTrust
Product name: CA eTrust r.8.1.634.0


-CAT QuickHeal
Result history: CAT QuickHeal
Product name: CAT Quick Heal 2007 v.9


-eEye
Result history: eEye
Product name: eEye Blink Personal Edition 3.0.9


-Eset
Result history: Eset
Product name: ESET Nod32 Antivirus System 2.70.32


-Fortinet
Result history: Fortinet
Product name: Fortinet Forticlient 3.0.412


-FRISK
Result history: FRISK
Product name: Frisk F-Prot Anti-Virus 6.0.70


-GDATA
Result history: GDATA
Product name: Gdata AntiVirusKit 17.0.7089


-K7 Computing
Result history: K7 Computing
Product name: K7 Total Security 2006


-McAfee
Result history: McAfee
Product name: McAfee VirusScan Enterprise v.8.5i


-Microsoft Forefront
Result history: Microsoft Forefront
Product name: Microsoft Forefront Client Security 1.5.1937


-Microsoft OneCare
Result history: Microsoft OneCare
Product name: Microsoft Windows Live OneCare 1.5.1890.35


-MicroWorld
Result history: MicroWorld
Product name: Microworld eScan Internet Security for Windows 9.0.714.1


-Norman
Result history: Norman
Product name: Norman Virus Control 5.90


-PC Tools AntiVirus
Result history: PC Tools AntiVirus
Product name: PC Tools Antivirus 3.1.1.6


-PC Tools Spyware Doctor
Result history: PC Tools Spyware Doctor
Product name: PC Tools Spyware Doctor v.5.0.0.182


-BitDefender (SOFTWIN)
Result history: BitDefender (SOFTWIN)
Product name: Softwin Bitdefender Antivirus Plus v.10


-Sophos
Result history: Sophos
Product name: Sophos Anti-Virus 6.54 R2


-Symantec
Result history: Symantec
Product name: Symantec AntiVirus 1.0.0.359


-Trend Micro
Result history: Trend Micro
Product name: Trend Micro PC-cillin Internet Security 2007 15.30.1151


-VirusBuster
Result history: VirusBuster
Product name: VirusBuster VirusBuster Professional 2006 v.5.2


-Webroot
Result history: Webroot
Product name: Webroot SpySweeper 5.5



Failed:

-Agnitum
Result history: Agnitum
Product name: Agnitum Outpost Security Suite Pro 2007 5.1214.616

-AhnLab
Result history: AhnLab
Product name: Ahnlab V3 Internet Security 2007 7.40.1

-Doctor Web
Result history: Doctor Web
Product name: Doctor Web Dr.Web 4.33.3.04230

-F-Secure
Result history: F-Secure
Product name: F-Secure Protection Service for Consumers 7.00

-Grisoft
Result history: Grisoft
Product name: Grisoft AVG 7.5 Professional Edition
(According to Andreas Clementi (AV-Comparatives) AVG failed due to a missed sample that was detected on the spyware side of the product)

-Ikarus
Result history: Ikarus
Product name: Ikarus Virus Utilities 1.0.52


-iolo
Result history: iolo
Product name: iolo AntiVirus 1.1.9


-Kaspersky
Result history: Kaspersky
Product name: Kaspersky Anti-Virus 6.0.2.621
(According to Andreas Clementi (AV-Comparatives) KAV failed due to missed sample as a result of a signature that was in the process of being "fixed")

-NWI
Result history: NWI
Product name: NWI VirusChaser 5.0a


-Proland Software
Result history: Proland Software
Product name: Proland Protector Plus 2007

 

[John]

VB100 Windows Vista x64 - August 2007
http://www.virusbtn.com/vb100/archive/2007/08

Passed:
Alwil, Bullguard, CAT QuickHeal, Eset, GDATA, Grisoft, Kaspersky, Kingsoft, McAfee, Microworld, Microsoft Forefront, Sophos, Symantec.

Failed:
CA eTrust, Fortinet, Ikarus, Trend Micro, VirusBuster.

 

[Schadenfroh]

Many thanks as usual John!

:thumbsup:

 

[Schadenfroh]

Forum member mechBgon has allowed me to add his research to the OP. His tests were performed in his own time using his "collection"

Thanks for taking the time to test them mech!

 

[mechBgon]

Originally posted by: Schadenfroh
Forum member mechBgon has allowed me to add his research to the OP. His tests were performed in his own time using his "collection"

Thanks for taking the time to test them mech!

My testing time pales in comparison to your commitment to maintaining these resource threads. :thumbsup:

 

[John]

SunbeltBlog has posted the latest AV-Test.org test results of 29 anti-virus and anti-malware products, performed on Windows XP (English, SP2) using the on-demand scanner utility. All products were last updated at 2007-08-10 (8:00 h GMT). The scan required about a week completing on 28 identical Core 2 Duo 6600 PCs with 2 GB RAM. AV-Test.org only used regular products and updates (no special or beta versions) of all scanners, in their most current edition for home users or small companies (the ones which are usually labelled "2007", as the "2008" series of products are not yet released).

http://www.sunbelt-software.co...lwarereportjun3007.pdf

MS OneCare has really improved its on-demand detection rates!

 

[Schadenfroh]

Originally posted by: John
MS OneCare has really improved its on-demand detection rates!

Indeed, Microsoft bested NOD32, Trend-Micro and Mcafee in that test.

Hopefully more tests will show that Microsoft has improved.

 

[Nocturnal]

That's good news for MS lol. I'm heavily thinking about switching over to Kaspersky. I missed out on the deal free after MIR. If it happens again, I'm switching.

 

[John]

AV-Comparatives Aug. 2007 comparative was just posted. Kudos to MS for the rapid improvement! However take the results for what they're worth.......

 

[mushroomx]

bump, why isnt this thread sticky anymore?

 

[Schadenfroh]

Originally posted by: mushroomx
bump, why isnt this thread sticky anymore?

It never was

 

[Brazen]

Is Kaspersky Internet Security Suite really any better at protecting your computer than Kaspersky Anti Virus?

I'm just wondering if KIS is going to slow my system down more than KAV without giving any real benefit since the extra features in KIS just sound like a bunch of smoke and mirrors.

 

[mechBgon]

Originally posted by: Brazen
Is Kaspersky Internet Security Suite really any better at protecting your computer than Kaspersky Anti Virus?

I'm just wondering if KIS is going to slow my system down more than KAV without giving any real benefit since the extra features in KIS just sound like a bunch of smoke and mirrors.

Maybe try the KIS trialware and get a firsthand feel for it. Nothing to lose

 

[Brazen]

Originally posted by: mechBgon

Originally posted by: Brazen
Is Kaspersky Internet Security Suite really any better at protecting your computer than Kaspersky Anti Virus?

I'm just wondering if KIS is going to slow my system down more than KAV without giving any real benefit since the extra features in KIS just sound like a bunch of smoke and mirrors.

Maybe try the KIS trialware and get a firsthand feel for it. Nothing to lose

I have. It just feels like bloat to me. But I'm no expert; maybe it does some extra things under the hood?

 

[lusher]

Originally posted by: Smilin
Wait a second. What the hell does this mean:

<blockquote>quote:
The 174770 virus samples were chosen using VS2000 according to Kaspersky, F-Prot, Nod32, Dr.Web, BitDefender and McAfee antivirus programs.</blockquote>


???

The biggest problem in holding a large scale malware test, is to ensure that your sample consists of valid functioning malware.

Sure, you can download, large amounts of malware from various sources, or even use honeypots, but a large number of them will be none-functioning.

Supposedly, to do well in tests, some antiviruses will detect everything even junk files that are not really a threat.. All they do is to create a dumb md5 hash of the file and presto! it's detected. Never mind if it's so buggy that it would never run at all.

To solve this problem of junk files, What some testers do is to scan their large virus archive with X number of reference antivirus, and any of the samples not detected by any of these antivirus will be dropped from the test set as non-functioning.

This is of course pretty silly (just because no antivirus detects a sample doesn't mean it's not a threat) but worse it gives these reference antivirus a HUGE advantage in the tests obviously compared to the others.

It's almost like setting a test by letting some of the examined set the questions.... and then subjecting everyone including those who set the test questions to said test.

Other methodologies both automated, semi-automated to weed out the chaff have being used of course, (e.g. labelling malware only if x number of antiviruses see it, which surprisingly isn't that good at filtering junk files as you might think, because some antiviruses mirror each other, so if they see antivirus X detecting file A, they will just follow suit without borthering to analyse if it is working), but in general you need humans to examine the code to be sure.

Sorry if I stated the obvious...

 

[lusher]

Originally posted by: Smilin
<blockquote>quote:
Originally posted by: John
<blockquote>quote:
Originally posted by: Schadenfroh
<blockquote>quote:
Originally posted by: Smilin
<blockquote>quote:
Originally posted by: Smilin
Wait a second. What the hell does this mean:

<blockquote>quote:
The 174770 virus samples were chosen using VS2000 according to Kaspersky, F-Prot, Nod32, Dr.Web, BitDefender and McAfee antivirus programs.</blockquote>


???</blockquote>

???

Anyone?</blockquote>

Poor translation maybe?</blockquote>

Read the third sentence in my OP and then go to the link for additional comments.
</blockquote>

The additional comments is the same place where I pulled that quote from.

I'm not really following how they chose what viruses to test. It looks like Kaspersky, F-Prot, Nod32, Dr.Web, BitDefender and McAfee were somehow involved which may explain why they are all in the 90s. I'm not sure if I'm misreading it.

You are not. And that is exactly why this test is stupid.

 

[lusher]

For antivirus testing and results you might also want to see the section i created

here

 

[DasFox]

Don't forget these:

West Coast Labs:
http://www.westcoastlabs.com/

ICSA:
http://www.icsalabs.com/icsa/icsahome.php

 

[lusher]

dasFox I already included the two you mention.

 

[DasFox]

Originally posted by: lusher
dasFox I already included the two you mention.

Ok well I did a search in FF, with "Find in this page" these words and didn't see them listed on any page, so where are they?

THANKS