New test results VirusInfo

[Sjoeii]

http://virusinfo.info/index.php?page=testseng
December '07

[trjam]

Damn, all I can say is good work Prevx.:thumb: :)

[huangker]

Is this one of the reliable tests like av-comparatives?

[jmc777]

{QUOTE-> Is this one of the reliable tests like av-comparatives? <-QUOTE}


The general 'rule of thumb' around here is: if your AV of choice does well - it's a reliable test. If it does badly - it's not.

[trjam]

yes, its reliable.

[tiagozt]

IKARUS, we are still waiting for a good English website with information about the antivirus and details.

Good results one more time...

The test is reliable for me... but I think Dr.Web isn't too good. Test powered by russian people should explain it. Despite it I think it's ok.

;)

[Solaris]

I am currently trying Ikarus; I am very surprised in every sense. I will wait until after my trial period and I think to purchase a license.

Very good result in this test, actually, but I suspect Ikarus to be a little paranoid -> FP.
He finds Trojan in some (unofficial) .nfo files. ???

[risl]

{QUOTE-> IKARUS, we are still waiting for a good English website with information about the antivirus and details.

Good results one more time...

The test is reliable for me... but I think Dr.Web isn't too good. Test powered by russian people should explain it. Despite it I think it's ok.

;) <-QUOTE}

Well, have you used Dr.Web and had problems, crashes, errors or infections? Did the support help you solve it if you had?

I'm not here to convince you of Dr.Web, but I think it's a bit funny to declare some software bad and demand explanations if it improves or does well in some other tests. It's been there for over 15 years and perhaps there is some room for downhills and uphills in that period. Would you be demanding an explanation if it would do well in av-test.org but bad in russian tests?

-> solution, don't let tests judge if a software is good or bad, try it yourself and see.

[C.S.J]

{QUOTE-> IKARUS, we are still waiting for a good English website with information about the antivirus and details.

Good results one more time...

The test is reliable for me... but I think Dr.Web isn't too good. Test powered by russian people should explain it. Despite it I think it's ok.

;) <-QUOTE}
drweb seems to do well in this test, but i dont think its a reliable test.

drweb seems to do well in anti-malware.ru tests, and they are reliable.

this is what confuses me, when i see the results of av-comp and av-test.

ive certainly never been infected with drweb, so i never know what to think of test results, i certainly dont make my choices on them.

[Bunkhouse Buck]

{QUOTE-> drweb seems to do well in this test, but i dont think its a reliable test.

drweb seems to do well in anti-malware.ru tests, and they are reliable.

this is what confuses me, when i see the results of av-comp and av-test.

ive certainly never been infected with drweb, so i never know what to think of test results, i certainly dont make my choices on them. <-QUOTE}

Yes but you would make your choice on them if Dr. Web tested good in all of your mentioned tests and the tests would then be considered "reliable." But since Dr. Web does not test well particularly in AV-Comparatives, then we ascribe an "unreliable" mark to it-right?

[noway]

How could it be trusted if they don't even list the software versions in the graph. I mean is it Symantec Consumer or Corporate? Did they use a version from 2007, 2006, 1995?

[C.S.J]

{QUOTE-> Yes but you would make your choice on them if Dr. Web tested good in all of your mentioned tests and the tests would then be considered "relaible." But since Dr. Web does not test well particularly in AV-Comparatives, then we ascribe an "unreliable" mark to it-right? <-QUOTE}
totally uncalled for.....

ive been a drweb user since before the anti-malware / virusinfo tests, i think you forget this.

[risl]

{QUOTE-> Yes but you would make your choice on them if Dr. Web tested good in all of your mentioned tests and the tests would then be considered "relaible." But since Dr. Web does not test well particularly in AV-Comparatives, then we ascribe an "unreliable" mark to it-right? <-QUOTE}

Since 0 antiviruses can detect absolutely 100% of present and new malware or prevent present or upcoming bypassing techniques, we can stamp an "unreliable mark" to every product.

[trjam]

It is ironic how some moved up, and some moved down from the last test. Is it reliable? Who know, who cares. This stuff is what it is. I still think the biggest surprise is Prevx. Actually I dont. I really think this is one to keep a eye on. They have been sitting back and I keep saying their time has come.

[Solaris]

This test does not take into account the FP or not. Under these conditions difficult to draw a conclusion, except for products that have really weak results.
A parallel comparison between "Av-Comparative" (pro-active - False positive), and this test allows to get an idea.

[Wordward]

Just curious if AVG Pro or AVG Anti-Malware is used? I believe it is AVG Pro, but anyone know for sure? Thanks.

[Hangetsu]

What's pretty shocking to me is Microsoft moved up ahead of many mainstay AVs... The day after finding out they really don't have any specific rootkit checks. I'm telling you, owning a copy of OneCare is like being on a security roller-coaster ride. ;D

[Bubba]

Since the above link in post # 1 (http://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?p=1154443#post1154443) is a repeat link of a previous ongoing thread, let's simply continue the discussion there Please.

Continue here---> New Virusinfo test (http://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?t=193714)

Thanks,
Bubba