Latest Shawdowserver Monthly Stats

[Bunkhouse Buck]

Two AVs score 99% or better- AVG7 and Avira followed by F-Protect6, Dr. Web, and F-Secure.


http://www.shadowserver.org/wiki/pmwiki.php?n=Stats.VirusMonthlyStats

[Dorn]

i rerally dont belive on these av test.
They dont even use newest version of antivirus software, for example they use old version of kaspersky and bitdefender version 10.
those antivirus test company are not truthfull to me.

[trjam]

I have to agree. After looking at all of this, I really think their reliability isnt that great compared to others.

[Bunkhouse Buck]

{QUOTE-> I have to agree. After looking at all of this, I really think their reliability isnt that great compared to others. <-QUOTE}

I would agree, especially since they are not using the latest builds of all the AVs. I have observed that the variance or standard deviation in the Monthly stats is small. This means that the ones near the top tend to stay near the top for months, and the ones near the bottom tend to stay there as well with little deviation.

[Dorn]

haha is Vexira better then f-prot, bitdefender and kaspersky?
this made me laugh very very much...
hahahahahaahaahhahaahah.
this av test is rubbish

[C.S.J]

They DO need to use the latest versions, for example, they do not use drweb 4.44

[SecOmnius]

According to the av-comparatives.org,
{QUOTE-> The tests they provide (over a large amount of samples collected thru honeypots) are done under Linux, therefore the results may differ a bit from the windows versions (due different programs/settings etc.) <-QUOTE}Here (http://www.av-comparatives.org/forum/index.php?page=Thread&threadID=732)

[xandros]

avira antivir do it again
antivir always in the first
good job avira antivir

[Bunkhouse Buck]

{QUOTE-> They DO need to use the latest versions, for example, they do not use drweb 4.44 <-QUOTE}

Agreed. If the tests do not reflect what we are using, the detection stats are not as significant- good or bad.

[C.S.J]

{QUOTE-> Agreed. If the tests do not reflect what we are using, the detection stats are not as significant- good or bad. <-QUOTE}
so-so,

however, good results from a previous version still is v.interesting.

[trjam]

Point well taken Chris.

What I am surprised, or happy to see is how well Eset has done. All I ever hear is how they miss stuff, but the reality is the product really is quite good. The problem is it gets amplified here way to much when that rare ocasion happens. Eset is a very good product.

[Bunkhouse Buck]

{QUOTE-> Point well taken Chris.

What I am surprised, or happy to see is how well Eset has done. All I ever hear is how they miss stuff, but the reality is the product really is quite good. The problem is it gets amplified here way to much when that rare ocasion happens. Eset is a very good product. <-QUOTE}

Agreed. I rotate between Dr. Web, Avira, and Nod32. They run light as hell, and offer the best overall protection. Anyone that thinks Eset misses a lot, doesn't know what they are talking about. I read purely anecdotal stuff on this board all the time about Eset missing this and that- I don't think so.

[Inspector Clouseau]

It's maybe slightly offtopic but my "Virtual Home System" what i developed on my own ( a nice female ) is linked to shadowserver and alerts me (during watching movie or whatever i do) when we miss important things. I just ask her whats going on at shadowserver.org and she tells me everything including "strange" detections. There's a small video available at youtube.com which shows a few "interesting" things of that system. Doesn't show the shadowserver funtionality but if you watch it you'll get the point that she is easily able to tell me about that ;D Have Fun: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xxtVjEXsJ1A

[IBK]

;D ;D ;D

[JasSolo]

{QUOTE-> Agreed. I rotate between Dr. Web, Avira, and Nod32. They run light as hell, and offer the best overall protection. Anyone that thinks Eset misses a lot, doesn't know what they are talking about. I read purely anecdotal stuff on this board all the time about Eset missing this and that- I don't think so. <-QUOTE}

Bravo!! :thumb:

[C.S.J]

{QUOTE-> Agreed. I rotate between Dr. Web, Avira, and Nod32. They run light as hell, and offer the best overall protection. Anyone that thinks Eset misses a lot, doesn't know what they are talking about. I read purely anecdotal stuff on this board all the time about Eset missing this and that- I don't think so. <-QUOTE}
as i said, there are many AV's that i would use, but only one must take that spot.

if nod32 wasnt so expensive, it would also be in a recommended list such as F-Secure, AVG, Norton, Bitdefender, GData ..... there are loads really.

for home users, there probably wouldnt be a problem using any popular av that gets mentioned here on wilders, but things do get said as this is a forum :)

for home users, whats the problem?

[SecOmnius]

{QUOTE-> Agreed. I rotate between Dr. Web, Avira, and Nod32. They run light as hell, and offer the best overall protection. Anyone that thinks Eset misses a lot, doesn't know what they are talking about. I read purely anecdotal stuff on this board all the time about Eset missing this and that- I don't think so. <-QUOTE}
Whether underestimated/misjudged or not, NOD32 v3 has the most beautiful & friendliest GUI for me.
Most importantly, NOD32 v3 offers so many Options (in the Advanced Setup Tree) that allow a lot of Configuaration/Customization.
This is something I missed a lot while trying other AVs...

[C.S.J]

with a little 'push' from yours truly, shadowserver have now updated all test systems to 4.44


But whether they have it set up correctly, only
time will tell

;)