AntiVir Irrational Exuberance

[Frank the Perv]

There is some board hysteria going on here.

One good test does not make a great AV.

There are many tests over the last several years that all seem to point in the general direction of a select group of AVs being at the top.

AntiVir is not in this group.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m all for up and comers and AVs becoming great. AntiVir is apparently doing well and improving.

But a test result or two does not make a great AV.

So everybody just calm down, drink a few brews, and lets see if AntiVir can sustain the positive gains they have made.

To be great in almost anything, you have to be consistent.

And the verdict is still out.

[trjam]

So, Frank, what do you recomend. Mcafee?

[BlueZannetti]

Although I do agree with some of the sentiment voiced, to me it is more the possibility of folks suddenly switching equivalent tier products due to differences of a couple of percentage points or less. This level of difference arguably represents the intrinsic noise of the test. The switch may make sense, but not if it's based solely on a first place finish. Of course, I tend to believe that whether first place is held by KAV, NOD32, Avira, or some other contender.

As I have consistently stated, and it's in line with the authors suggestions, look to the rank scaling for guidance. In fact, Avira does have a clear and persistent upward performance trend. If you look at the on-demand performance from 2004 on, it goes STANDARD, STANDARD, STANDARD, ADVANCED, ADVANCED+, and ADVANCED+. Likewise, the retrospective results trend as UNRATED (i.e. rather low), STANDARD, STANDARD, STANDARD, ADVANCED.

As for whether these results point to Avira being in the top group, I guess I'd disagree and maintain that they say precisely that. Of course, that's a view shaded by the broad stroke classification.

Blue

[kdm31091]

Yes it went up considerably in this test, but it's been at least above average for awhile.

[ccsito]

I agree that no software product is perfect (except for those made by yours truly ;D which if it has flaws, will have serious consequences like calls in the middle of the night) :o . However, you have to use some kind of barometer to compare the products, otherwise you will not have any point of comparison and may as well as pick one blindfolded. Many of the antispyware test reports have programs being ranked in different places that you wonder how #1 ended up next to last in another test. The only sure proof way of determining the accuracy and usefulness of one program with another is to actually compare the source code. Since most casual users are not programmers (I am one), they have to do their homework from getting information from other users or doing obtaining it themselves. This program does not have the longer history of AV program development such as McAfee VirusScan and Norton Anti-virus. But it is one of the few free AV programs still offered to non-commercial users. From the free AV program universe, I think it has been rated well by PC World magazine. But as for waiting to see how it will stack up in the future is sort of like saying to the low budget user to "get McAfee or Norton or nothing at all". Any program can improve or decline dramatically as new versions are produced. So you can never rely on past performance as a gauge of future results (most mutual funds brochure state this).
Bottom line for me is that as long as I don't get hacked, trojaned, or hijacked for as long as I use the PC, the "faults" of any program don't make a difference to me. ;)

[trjam]

I think it is obvious it was only a matter of time before others crept up on the leaders. New staff that are experts in their fields, a lot of reasons. I personally feel that Kaspersky hooking up with AOL will lead to a product that isn’t as good if they had stayed the course. AOL will make their recommendations, some may get implemented, but at what cost. I also feel that Eset has dropped the ball in not getting a suite out their for beta testing before now. Antivir and others are using this time to beef up their staffs, improve their product because they wish to start seeing a profit margin that Norton, MacAfee and Kas have had for a lot of years. Bigger usually doesn’t equate to better. I only hope that Antivir comes through this with a low false positive rating. That will either be the icing on the cake, or the back to the drawing board for this euphoria they are currently enjoying.

[alch]

A really interesting way to test the success of an antivirus program is to take a 2 month old version of the antivirus software and test it on samples that were discovered in the past 2 months. This is an interesting take on the forward compatability of an antivirus program.

It would be interesting to see how theese up and comers do on a test like that.

[bellgamin]

-{ Quote: "So everybody just calm down, drink a few brews, and lets see if AntiVir can sustain the positive gains they have made." }-Hmmm... rather a pontifical command IMO. I am quite calm, thank you -- & *brews* have little to do with emotional equilibrium. To the contrary, in fact.

I am *calmly* VERY impressed with AntiVir's current results. Moreover, if one makes the effort to scan back through prior tests over the previous year or so, it becomes evident that AntiVir's progress has been consistently upward trending. Even so, I am clutching my checkbook in eager anticipation for the time when Inspector Clouseau & his frisky cohorts get u-know-what out of beta.

[trjam]

Around Nov 1, with a few surprises to come.

[trjam]

Some interesting reading.
http://www.auerbach-foundation.com/stifter.html

Whoops, cant forget Hannelore
http://www.auerbach-foundation.com/vorstand.html

I think any software vendor who offers free software to the ones who cant afford the option of, layered security, need to be commended. For Nick Skrepetos ,Tjark Auerbach and the rest of you, my hat is off in thanks.

[Don Pelotas]

-{ Quote: "I think it is obvious it was only a matter of time before others crept up on the leaders. New staff that are experts in their fields, a lot of reasons. I personally feel that Kaspersky hooking up with AOL will lead to a product that isn’t as good if they had stayed the course. AOL will make their recommendations, some may get implemented, but at what cost. I also feel that Eset has dropped the ball in not getting a suite out their for beta testing before now. Antivir and others are using this time to beef up their staffs, improve their product because they wish to start seeing a profit margin that Norton, MacAfee and Kas have had for a lot of years. Bigger usually doesn’t equate to better. I only hope that Antivir comes through this with a low false positive rating. That will either be the icing on the cake, or the back to the drawing board for this euphoria they are currently enjoying." }-
You really need to get the facts straight, trjam. AOL/Kaspersky is a rebadged version of 6.0 with fewer options and not a version taking up developer resources that will "lead to a product that isn’t as good if they had stayed the course."

It's pretty much like AntiVir/Avira, rebadged, but the same, in AOL/Kaspersky's case just with fewer options.

[trjam]

Don, you are correct and I apologize, I just know the history of AOL and Time Warner, and not fond of either. But in no way can I knock Kas and their history of being a leader in this field. I hope it does make you stronger, but you have to admit that sometimes, marriages like this dont work out if profit is the driving factor. And that doesnt mean I am implying that either.

[CloneRanger]

I don't see what is irrational or exuberant about enthusing over a product that is constantly excelling ?

[trjam]

-{ Quote: "I don't see what is irrational or exuberant about enthusing over a product that is constantly excelling ?" }-


Agree, this irony is, the more that accomplish this, from a consumers standpoint, it will be great. More competition leads to lower prices. :D

[the Tester]

I don't see what's irrational about being exuberant over AntiVir.
It's getting recognised more lately,but that doesn't mean it's a one-test wonder.On the contrary,the program has a record of steadily improving over time.
It's nice to see a freeware program do well.

[maddawgz]

well i guess u got 2 choices pay or have free and well for free it seem's fine for the average user?....... Id prefer it over Avast ! ;D i have the $$$$ But i will not pay for Nod32 its just not user friendly and Since i been using Antivir its saved me 3x...... more then Pc cillian did in a yr and more and more r becoming bloatware! it runs nice on my machine best yet !..... i feel confident

[Don Pelotas]

-{ Quote: "Don, you are correct and I apologize, I just know the history of AOL and Time Warner, and not fond of either. But in no way can I knock Kas and their history of being a leader in this field. I hope it does make you stronger, but you have to admit that sometimes, marriages like this dont work out if profit is the driving factor. And that doesnt mean I am implying that either." }-
Of course Kaspersky hopes that some of the AOL/Kav users will like it so much that they will buy the full version or the suite, the whole point of this collaboration from Kaspersky's perspective is that they get free exposure in a market where most don't know them outside securityforums and thats not a bad thing IMO as long as the product remains as strong as it always has been. AOL or not.

I have personally never used AOL, but i understand some would be apprehensive about using anything related to AOL, but the thing is that if you install AVS shield without the toolbar, you're getting a slimmed down free version of Kaspersky 6.0, not AOL spyware etc and AVS users should get the new heuristics when they are ready too btw. :)

[mercurie]

-{ Quote: "I don't see what's irrational about being exuberant over AntiVir.
It's getting recognised more lately,but that doesn't mean it's a one-test wonder.On the contrary,the program has a record of steadily improving over time.
It's nice to see a freeware program do well." }-Exactly! I loaded my copy before the test came out that has caused such a "exuberant" outburst ;D This is all so funny to me. I thought I had found a good free AV product so I switched. :) Confirmation testings always is a good thing. ;)

[Frank the Perv]

-{ Quote: "So, Frank, what do you recommend. Mcafee?" }-

I recommend the following to people: KAV, NOD32, Bitdefender, and yes McAfee. And thank you for asking.

Side note: I was just about to dump McAfee as the new version slowed things down so much. But just a couple of days ago, a software update came out and things are back to normal.


-{ Quote: "Hmmm... rather a pontifical command IMO. I am quite calm, thank you -- & *brews* have little to do with emotional equilibrium. To the contrary, in fact." }-

Yes, my pontification and obfuscation could may only lead to infuscation...

Just try a couple of Belgian doubles or triples and let me know how you feel.


-{ Quote: "As I have consistently stated, and it's in line with the authors suggestions, look to the rank scaling for guidance. In fact, Avira does have a clear and persistent upward performance trend. If you look at the on-demand performance from 2004 on, it goes STANDARD, STANDARD, STANDARD, ADVANCED, ADVANCED+, and ADVANCED+. " }-

Good point Blue. I was not aware of the general upward trend of AntiVir, so I am conceding somewhat to the exuberance.


-{ Quote: "The only sure proof way of determining the accuracy and usefulness of one program with another is to actually compare the source code." }-

Disagree CCSITO. The source code could be great or marginal, but source code quality does not necessarily translate to product quality. I believe that comparing results in the many available product tests is the best method we have available to compare products.


-{ Quote: "I think any software vendor who offers free software to the ones who cant afford the option of, layered security, need to be commended." }-

Dat b da troof.

[RejZoR]

So program that is being improved is not as worthy as the one that already has a good track record. Going from 3x Standard to 2x Advanced and 2x Advanced+ is not enough? It goes straight up and looks steady enough.
It's not like it's jumping from Standard to Advanced+ and back to Standard again...

[Suggers]

Avira are definately putting a lot of effort into their heuristics/generics; they've been detecting nearly all Zlobs as DR/Zlob.Gen for weeks, the one or two I've submitted that haven't been detected are added within hours.

[kdm31091]

-{ Quote: "Avira are definately putting a lot of effort into their heuristics/generics; they've been detecting nearly all Zlobs as DR/Zlob.Gen for weeks, the one or two I've submitted that haven't been detected are added within hours." }-

Yes that's the good thing about Antivir, they respond quick to submissions.

[Stefan Kurtzhals]

Which reminds me to check the Zlob generic (old family) again. Oops, had to update it again. ;-)

[lodore]

well i think antivir is a great product that works and is getting better and better.

and is on my list along wiht kaspersky.

[TonyW]

I said in another thread that this is all fine as long as people don't fall into the trap of switching AVs just because 'x' product has garnered better results this time around. I do hope such products continue to do well, but I can see the danger of people "jumping ship" based on .% results.

[Suggers]

-{ Quote: "I said in another thread that this is all fine as long as people don't fall into the trap of switching AVs just because 'x' product has garnered better results this time around.." }-

I would agree, but like Rejzor said above, I think the excellent results on this test confirm what many have noticed, and what AV-comparatives show; that Antivir has been steadily improving for some time. I believe it's had a new heuristic engine this year, and Stefan and co seem to be doing a really good job in fine-tuning the generics and heuristics. It'll be interesting to see how avira do in the next pro-active test.

Suggers

[Arin]

There are atleast hundreds of AV tests lurking on the Net, most of them just
*cough*. So Avira not being the chosen one on some tests doesn't bother
me. RejZor is right, its improving by leaps and bounds and when the rootkit
detection by heuristics will be added, I'm sure it'll give a good fight to Norton
and NOD32. The signature detection already surpassed them. Hats off to
Avira.

[maddawgz]

Im just running there beta rootkit now...will that be added into the suite?

[kdm31091]

-{ Quote: "Im just running there beta rootkit now...will that be added into the suite?" }-

I would think so, or just become part of the AV area.