AntiVirus Detection Rate Thread

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Schadenfroh

Schadenfroh

Elite Member
Mar 8, 2003
38,416
4
0
Created to discuss the detection rate of antivirus products. Special thanks to John and mechBgon for finding many of the links listed below.

NOTE ABOUT AVG AVG-Free Edition does not have the same detection rate as AVG AntiMalware (which is used in many of these tests). AntiMalware includes Ewido's engine and Free Edition lacks it, so AntiMalware's detection rate is higher than the Free Edition.

NOTE ABOUT FALSE POSITIVES It is also important to consider the number of false positives when looking at detection rate tests, pay close attention to how many false positives that are "detected" by each product.

Detection Rate tests:
  • Forum member mechBgon's research:
  • Virus.GR
  • Originally posted by: 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).
    http://www.sunbelt-software.co...lwarereportjun3007.pdf
    Click to expand...

    AV-Test GmbH
    We tested all 29 scanners against a set of malware, including 68,864 backdoors, 47,891 bots (zombies), 407,487 Trojan Horses as well as 82,659 worms, so the total number of malware we tested against was 606,901 files. The best product detected 99.83% of our collection while the worst one was only able to identify 62.12% of the samples.
    Click to expand...
  • AV-Comparatives
  • VB100%
    Originally posted by: John
    VB100 update


    CA Anti-Virus, the home edition of CA's product, was recorded missing some 20 samples from the WildList collection, although the corporate version, eTrust, had no such difficulties. This anomaly has been found after further analysis to be due to an older version of the product's detection data files being submitted for the test, a submission error due in part to an office move coinciding with the deadline date. Real-world users with automated updates in operation should have had more comprehensive detection in place, and would thus have been protected from all the WildList threats.

    Kaspersky's product missed a single item from the WildList, in on-access tests only. This was due to a setting in the on-access mode avoiding scanning a particular file type, for performance reasons. According to Kaspersky Labs this setting has been adjusted to ensure this file type will be fully covered by the on-access scanner in future, but VB acknowledges that, were the sample to be fully executed, its malicious actions would have been blocked by other layers of protection included in the product.

    ESET's NOD32 was stated as missing a single sample from the polymorphic test set. Further checking has found this was in fact a corrupted file included in the test set in error, and ESET should have achieved the excellent score of 100% across all test sets. The appropriate corrections to online results will be made as soon as possible.

    12 December 2007

    ---

    Note: Please keep in mind that VB100 only means that an AV is capable of detecting all of the current viruses on the Wild List and generates no false positives. Vendors have come to realize the marketing significance of these tests, and the effort they put into their products to pass the VB100 tests may not reflect the effort they put into detecting viruses outside of those included in the VB100 test set. It's possible for an AV product to pass all the VB100 tests but still have mediocre virus detection.
    Click to expand...
  • OITC Tests
  • ICSA Labs Certified Products
  • West Coast Lab "Checkmark" Certification Lookup
  • Originally posted by: John
    AVTest.org - Security suites 2008 under test (Q1/2008)
    Click to expand...

For hot deals on security products, see The Antivirus, Firewall, and AntiSpyware Deals Thread.

For more information about malware removal and prevention, please see the Security Resource Thread.
 
Schadenfroh

Schadenfroh

Elite Member
Mar 8, 2003
38,416
4
0
Originally posted by: Sureshot324
Wow AVG has improved a lot. It used to have a pretty bad detection rate.
Click to expand...

Basing results from the 2006 test (before the Ewido merger), AVG Free Edition (if that is what you are talking about) is roughly about 10% less than AVG AntiMalware (which has the Ewido scanning engine and is the reason for the increase).
 
secretanchitman

secretanchitman

Diamond Member
Apr 11, 2001
9,352
23
91
hmm, not saying that nod32's detection rate is bad, but i thought it would rank in the top 5 instead of being 11th.
 
Schadenfroh

Schadenfroh

Elite Member
Mar 8, 2003
38,416
4
0
Originally posted by: secretanchitman
hmm, not saying that nod32's detection rate is bad, but i thought it would rank in the top 5 instead of being 11th.
Click to expand...

If one was to remove AntiVirus products that license Kaspersky's engine, NOD32 would be in the top 10.
 
N

Noema

Platinum Member
Feb 15, 2005
2,974
0
0
Originally posted by: Tizyler
What is the best *free* one?
Click to expand...

AOL's Active Virus Shield, which is basically a lite version of Kaspersky.

And I'm glad to see Antivir is still in the top ten.
 
Mem

Mem

Lifer
Apr 23, 2000
21,476
13
81
Avast seems to be doing better then some of the big names like Norton,Panda etc.. not bad at all.
NOD32 seems to have fallen a bit.
I'm still using KAV 6(got a 2 year sub).
 
J

John

Moderator Emeritus<br>Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
33,944
2
81
6 out of the top 10 use a KAV engine. :) Norton seems a little too low on the list IMO. VirusP @ virus.gr uses certain AV scanners as "reference" scanners, so if they don't detect a sample it is discarded. At least that is what I make out of it. Read more: http://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?t=174299

A few weeks ago PC World published their AV comparative put together by av-test.org using close to 900,000 samples. AV-test is one of the largest and most respected labs in the business.

Antivirus Software - Side-by-Side Comparison

AV-comparatives.org also shows Norton to have a respectable detection rate that is "as good" as Kaspersky. They are also extremely credible.

I think I am going to ditch my KIS 6.0 and switch to Abacre version 1.4 :)
 
flashbacck

flashbacck

Golden Member
Aug 3, 2001
1,921
0
76
Originally posted by: JohnAV-comparatives.org also shows Norton to have a respectable detection rate that is "as good" as Kaspersky. They are also extremely credible....
Click to expand...

The system slowdown measurements there are very interesting. I don't understand why BitDefender gets an 84 (very good), when there's a 187% and 124% slowdown with firefox2 and MS Office, respectively. I would drop them 20 points for such system load.
 
Ultralight

Ultralight

Senior member
Jul 11, 2004
990
1
76
Depending on who you read and who is doing the testing, in comparison, the results are never the same. Though I find this interesting, and to a degree informative, I take all of these types of testing with the proverbial "Grain of Salt." Though with Kaspersky I can see them leading the pack because it is that good.
 
mechBgon

mechBgon

Super Moderator<br>Elite Member
Oct 31, 1999
30,699
1
0
Originally posted by: Ultralight
Depending on who you read and who is doing the testing, in comparison, the results are never the same. Though I find this interesting, and to a degree informative, I take all of these types of testing with the proverbial "Grain of Salt." Though with Kaspersky I can see them leading the pack because it is that good.
Click to expand...
My 2 cents' worth is that it's not just how many of X number of viruses the product detects in such a test, but response time. Kaspersky updates 24 times a day. The other guys...?

Email worms are an example. My mom used to have a Win2000 system with Norton AntiVirus 2003, all options maxed including heuristics. She got an email, she tried to follow the instructions and open the funny attachment (she's total noOb), and she infected her system with a MyDoom variant. Two days later, Norton had virus defs available for that variant. Too late.

So in the case of a very fast-spreading threat, such as an IM worm, I sure don't want my antivirus software to be using virus defs that are 12-18 hours old. Granted, I don't rely just on reactive protection (such as antivirus software) but many of you do, so consider reaction time when you're deciding what to use.
 
WT

WT

Diamond Member
Sep 21, 2000
4,816
59
91
There must be some mistake ... I don't see MS OneCare anywhere on the list .. ohhh wait ... maybe down around the 70's or 80's possibly ??
 
S

Smilin

Diamond Member
Mar 4, 2002
7,357
0
0
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.
Click to expand...


???
 
B

BladeVenom

Lifer
Jun 2, 2005
13,365
16
0
Originally posted by: WT
There must be some mistake ... I don't see MS OneCare anywhere on the list .. ohhh wait ... maybe down around the 70's or 80's possibly ??
Click to expand...

In the article notes,"Windows Live OneCare, BKAV, PC Tools kept crashing while scanning the samples."
 
WT

WT

Diamond Member
Sep 21, 2000
4,816
59
91
Hah ... well, I had high hopes for NoneCare, errr, I mean OneCare, as the backup feature was absolutely a selling point in my book, but the rest of its features are well below my usual standards. Needless to say, I will not be renewing my 3 pack subscription next year.

OTOH, the Windows Home Server beta has been a totally painfree setup for me for quite some time. It does a much better job backing up than OneCare, so I have absolutely no reason to renew OneCare. A full backup for each networked PC is my most important priority at this point, so peace of mind in regards to your data is very nice to achieve.
 
Schadenfroh

Schadenfroh

Elite Member
Mar 8, 2003
38,416
4
0
Originally posted by: WT
Hah ... well, I had high hopes for NoneCare, errr, I mean OneCare, as the backup feature was absolutely a selling point in my book, but the rest of its features are well below my usual standards. Needless to say, I will not be renewing my 3 pack subscription next year.

OTOH, the Windows Home Server beta has been a totally painfree setup for me for quite some time. It does a much better job backing up than OneCare, so I have absolutely no reason to renew OneCare. A full backup for each networked PC is my most important priority at this point, so peace of mind in regards to your data is very nice to achieve.
Click to expand...

Would you mind terribly writing about your experience using One Care's backup utility in this thread? I will add it to the OP with credit to you, I did not use it when I had it installed.
 
Ultralight

Ultralight

Senior member
Jul 11, 2004
990
1
76
Originally posted by: mechBgon My 2 cents' worth is that it's not just how many of X number of viruses the product detects in such a test, but response time. Kaspersky updates 24 times a day. The other guys...?

Granted, I don't rely just on reactive protection (such as antivirus software) but many of you do, so consider reaction time when you're deciding what to use.
Click to expand...

I fully agree. I myself have NOD32 and though they don't update 24 times a day I can personally atest to the fact that they upgrade 3 to 4 times a day at least. I haven't had one issue since installing NOD32.
 
S

Smilin

Diamond Member
Mar 4, 2002
7,357
0
0
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.
Click to expand...


???
Click to expand...

???

Anyone?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom