CA/eTrust doubts

[Firecat]

The thing is, tests like AV-comparatives (in its special report) and AV-test do not show CA/eTrust to be very good at detection rates. Yet, given CA's marketshare and the size of the company, I find it hard to digest that they could really be that bad. I am wondering why exactly CA's detection rates are not so good as they could be?

The best explanation I could think of is that AV-test and AV-comparatives tested only the Anti-Virus engine of CA and not the Anti-Virus + Anti-Spyware engine. However, I still doubt the Anti-Spyware engine would make a difference of leaps and bounds in CA's overall detection rate. So what would be the reason for the relatively low detection rates of CA in comparison to the competition? ???

[IBK]

{QUOTE-> The best explanation I could think of is that AV-test and AV-comparatives tested only the Anti-Virus engine of CA and not the Anti-Virus + Anti-Spyware engine. <-QUOTE}
could be. we will know it when it gets tested. Some peoples from CA already told me that they would like to get tested by us more often (and also with the AV+AS product). Seems like much is changing at CA and that they are going to improve in future. We will see.

[kinwolf]

This is pure speculation based on my own observations, but I think that CA(and you could say Trend too) mostly concentrate on making sure their AV detect the virus on the In-the-wild list. The rest doesn't look as important.

The reason being that for corporate accounts, what count most is having a robust deployment console and being certified by ICSA or VB100.

[C.S.J]

ca need to start with sorting out their software, pointless having detection if the software is sooo rubbish, heavy and a pain in the butt.

[wdh2313]

{QUOTE-> ca need to start with sorting out their software, pointless having detection if the software is sooo rubbish, heavy and a pain in the butt. <-QUOTE}
I agree they aren't good at detecting old viruses they worry about the present ones to much....

[ashishtx]

Sorry for my some off topic comment
My Junior college had Etrust version 7 (currently using etrust version 8 ) and i found it extremely light and had no issue of any kind. The reason for its popularity with companies may lie in it's management interface and lightness with almost zero false positives. Version 8 is kind of heavy for home user with its accompanying server software. Etrust version 7 is one of my fav av for its lightness. Last but not least it is very versatile to be used on


Microsoft: Windows 95, 98, ME, NT 4.0SP6a, 2000, XP (32/64-bit), Server 2003 (32/64-bit), as well as Microsoft Exchange 2000 and 2003
Linux (32 bit): Red Hat Enterprise Linux 3 and greater, SuSE Linux Enterprise Server 8 and greater, SuSE 9.0 and greater
UNIX: Sun Solaris 8 and greater; HP-UX 11.0 and 11.11
Novell: NetWare 5.1 and greater
Citrix Presentation Server 4 for Windows
Lotus: Notes/Domino 4.6.2 and greater
Network Appliance NAS Devices: Filer Appliance
Cisco NAC and Microsoft NAP Support for Windows
Apple: Macintosh OS X 10.3 and greater for Power PC; Macintosh OS X 10.4 and greater for Intel
Gateway: Microsoft Windows NT 4.0, 2000, XP, 2003, Red Hat Linux
Gateway Plug-In: Microsoft ISA Server; Apache; CVP
PDAs: Palm, Microsoft Windows Mobile 2002/2003/2005, Microsoft Smartphone 2005, Pocket PC 2003



I think CA is concentrating too much on compatablity than detection.