TrustPort

[piratere]

Hello All,
I've been browsing the forum for a short period, but so far I haven't seen any mention of TrustPort products. From personal experience, this is THE best antivirus on the market today. They have 3 scanning engines -upgradeable to 5!- and they have the highest detection rates on av-comparatives and Virus Bulletin among others.

[djohn]

{QUOTE-> Hello All,
I've been browsing the forum for a short period, but so far I haven't seen any mention of TrustPort products. From personal experience, this is THE best antivirus on the market today. They have 3 scanning engines -upgradeable to 5!- and they have the highest detection rates on av-comparatives and Virus Bulletin among others. <-QUOTE}
Well If you really want to believe that to be true,you may want to take a gander at it again. As of may 2008 AV comparitives shows avira with 72 percent total with Advanced plus rating and trust port with in the 60 percent with not even a Advance rating.Note Avira has a single scan engine.Multiple scanning engine do not make better detections maybe at FP.;)

[ambient_88]

{QUOTE-> Hello All,
I've been browsing the forum for a short period, but so far I haven't seen any mention of TrustPort products. From personal experience, this is THE best antivirus on the market today. They have 3 scanning engines -upgradeable to 5!- and they have the highest detection rates on av-comparatives and Virus Bulletin among others. <-QUOTE}
Just because it has multiple scanning engines doesn't mean it's the best. Like djohn said, the disadvantage(s) of using multiple engines is that the rate of false positives is higher. Also, if the licensor of their scanning engines decide to stop licensing it they would be in trouble.

[C.S.J]

these types of software have poor rootkit detections/drivers, and almost no removal of detected threats.

[piratere]

As for the May test, it's proactive detection test -if I remember correctly. You will not find the same vendor as "the best" in that. Not even in the same test. As an example, Avira -among many others, but since used in the example- still can't clean Virtumond. Well till a couple of weeks back anyway and that includes updates. Still, almost every on-demand test which TP participated in, it gets right on top of the list. I think the default setting of 2 on-access engines only is what limits its functionality in proactive testing. I personally have 3 engines running on access + Sandboxing. Nothing has gotten through so far though I'm being used as a test-lab for some virus generators :).
I'm not saying they have 100% detection. I'm saying they are the best. I got infected a couple of months back and Symantec, NOD32 and Kaspersky failed in detecting the viruses. TrustPort found the 15 -yes that figure is correct- infections I had and wiped them clean. The machine is now perfect.
Of course multiple scanning engines don't mean 100% security. It just means better chances at getting the virus. That's all there is to an AV really.

[emperordarius]

Trustport is slow scanning, full of false positives, not good at removal, big resource hungry. I'd give up a 0.somewhat % rather than suffering that things.
I don't quite understand Trusport's logic. It isn't "Let's make a combination of av engines, but which remains fast and efficient", and achieve a good result, without making too much false positives(ex F-Secure) it's more like "Let's buy as many engines as we can afford, and stuff them all inside a single software".

[piratere]

{QUOTE-> Trustport is slow scanning, full of false positives, not good at removal, big resource hungry. I'd give up a 0.somewhat % rather than suffering that things.
I don't quite understand Trusport's logic. It isn't "Let's make a combination of av engines, but which remains fast and efficient", and achieve a good result, without making too much false positives(ex F-Secure) it's more like "Let's buy as many engines as we can afford, and stuff them all inside a single software". <-QUOTE}
This is where we differ I guess. Mostly because I'm a business user with sensitive data. I'd rather slow down my PCs a bit than have a chance at getting infected. Though honestly speaking, I don't feel things that slow using a core2 duo.
Generally speaking, I would use another AV at home maybe, but not at work. NOD32 is a good home protection application. It is light and "looks nice" :). Still, if I wanted lighter protection, I can run TP with one scanning engine.
As for the TP policy, I seriously doubt they are just throwing in engines as you said. It's becoming a fact that one engine is not enough. Check out MS ForeFront or GFI for details on that. ForeFront has 7 engines by the way. Now that would be slow :).

[emperordarius]

{QUOTE-> This is where we differ I guess. Mostly because I'm a business user with sensitive data. I'd rather slow down my PCs a bit than have a chance at getting infected. Though honestly speaking, I don't feel things that slow using a core2 duo.
Generally speaking, I would use another AV at home maybe, but not at work. NOD32 is a good home protection application. It is light and "looks nice" :). Still, if I wanted lighter protection, I can run TP with one scanning engine.
As for the TP policy, I seriously doubt they are just throwing in engines as you said. It's becoming a fact that one engine is not enough. Check out MS ForeFront or GFI for details on that. ForeFront has 7 engines by the way. Now that would be slow :). <-QUOTE}

I believe that a product with 1 engine and a good proactive protection can provide the same or more protection than a multi engined av. That wouldn't slow down your pc, make huge amounts of false positives and get problems with removal. BTW The only multi engine software which looks worth using to me seems F-Secure 2009(beta).

[DasFox]

Everyone forgot to mention it's 119MB BIG, LOL...

[Fajo]

{QUOTE-> As for the May test, it's proactive detection test -if I remember correctly. You will not find the same vendor as "the best" in that. Not even in the same test. As an example, Avira -among many others, but since used in the example- still can't clean Virtumond. Well till a couple of weeks back anyway and that includes updates. Still, almost every on-demand test which TP participated in, it gets right on top of the list. I think the default setting of 2 on-access engines only is what limits its functionality in proactive testing. I personally have 3 engines running on access + Sandboxing. Nothing has gotten through so far though I'm being used as a test-lab for some virus generators :).
I'm not saying they have 100% detection. I'm saying they are the best. I got infected a couple of months back and Symantec, NOD32 and Kaspersky failed in detecting the viruses. TrustPort found the 15 -yes that figure is correct- infections I had and wiped them clean. The machine is now perfect.
Of course multiple scanning engines don't mean 100% security. It just means better chances at getting the virus. That's all there is to an AV really. <-QUOTE}


I want to know how many of those it detected ended up being FP's or did you just click remove on everything. :dry: or cookies or temp internet files. as some programs consider those as infections. =\

Besides its easy to get a good score when you flag everything as a virus. :dry:

[ambient_88]

{QUOTE-> Everyone forgot to mention it's 119MB BIG, LOL... <-QUOTE}
As long as it doesn't use too much resources, the amount of disk space it uses doesn't really matter anymore. Hard drives are dirt cheap nowadays.

[emperordarius]

{QUOTE-> I want to know how many of those it detected ended up being FP's or did you just click remove on everything. :dry: or cookies or temp internet files. as some programs consider those as infections. =\

Besides its easy to get a good score when you flag everything as a virus. :dry: <-QUOTE}

Yeah...thinking of it, Ewido does detect a lot of tracking cookies::)

[Firecat]

{QUOTE-> Yeah...thinking of it, Ewido does detect a lot of tracking cookies::) <-QUOTE}
So does the new AVG 8.0; though that can be disabled in the options :)