PDA

View Full Version : VB RAP test results - June 2009


maymoons
June 3rd, 2009, 01:37 PM
-{ Quote: " VB's RAP tests put products' reactive and proactive detection abilities to the test. The June 2009 test was run on Windows Server 2003 x64 Enterprise Edition.
The results of the February 2009, April 2009 and June 2009 RAP tests are being made available to all registered users - in future tests, the results will only be viewable by Virus Bulletin subscribers. (Click here (http://www.virusbtn.com/virusbulletin/subscriptions) for subscription information.)
The results of the February 2009 RAP tests (carried out on Red Hat Enterprise Linux) can be viewed here (http://www.virusbtn.com/vb100/rap-200902.xml) and the results of the April 2009 RAP tests (carried out on Windows XP (SP3)) can be viewed here (http://www.virusbtn.com/vb100/rap-200904.xml)
The test measures products' detection rates across four distinct sets of malware samples. The first three test sets comprise malware first seen in each of the three weeks prior to product submission. These measure how quickly product developers and labs react to the steady flood of new malware emerging every day across the world. A fourth test set consists of malware samples first seen in the week after product submission. This test set is used to gauge products' ability to detect new and unknown samples proactively, using heuristic and generic techniques.
The test results are represented graphically. The three pale blue bars represent (from the left) weeks -3, -2 and -1, while the dark blue bar represents week +1. An overall 'RAP score' is also presented on the graph, which represents the average detection over the four weeks. In cases where products have generated false positives in our tests the background of the graph are coloured red and a large cross, together with 'FP' act as a warning to the user, showing the number of false positives generated.
A full description of the RAP testing methodology and explanation of how to interpret the results graphs can be read here (http://www.virusbtn.com/vb100/vb200902-RAP-tests).
" }-

http://www.virusbtn.com/vb100/rap-200906.xml

fried_oyz
June 3rd, 2009, 06:43 PM
Wow.. Well done Avast! :blink:

gery
June 4th, 2009, 12:45 AM
AVg not bad

funkydude
June 4th, 2009, 07:23 AM
1FP = Failed Test

Try zooming my crappy small text, apologies.

209441

Macstorm
June 4th, 2009, 06:31 PM
-{ Quote: "1FP = Failed Test" }-
So?
Should we all opt for the 2nd, 3rd or.... the "9th" ::) best ranked AV instead?

Phenom
June 4th, 2009, 06:51 PM
-{ Quote: "So?
Should we all opt for the 2nd, 3rd or.... the "9th" ::) best ranked AV instead?" }-
Co-sign. Avira is #1 right now, can't really doubt that even tests prove that even though I don't rely on tests. I like protection that offers light and superior protection is all that matters like Avira, Norton 09, or ESET.

funkydude
June 4th, 2009, 07:00 PM
-{ Quote: "So?
Should we all opt for the 2nd, 3rd or.... the "9th" ::) best ranked AV instead?" }-

No "so". I was just stating that 1 FP fails the test so people know...

Fly
June 4th, 2009, 07:07 PM
-{ Quote: "Avira with the highest detection (88.5%) by far yet again. It gave one false positive.

The next highest is Sophos Antivirus with 81.8% (and 0 false positives).

The bronze medal goes to TrustPort Antivirus with 80.7% (0 false positives), followed very closely by AVG Internet Security with 80.6% (0 false positives)." }-

I'm surprised about the Sophos' data.
I'm not a subscriber, so I don't know much about the test.

81.8 % isn't that high. In av-comparatives' tests Sophos has a very high number of false positives. Not sure what to think of this ?

Macstorm
June 4th, 2009, 07:19 PM
-{ Quote: "No "so". I was just stating that 1 FP fails the test so people know..." }-
Fine :)

But, I don't know why, something tells me that VB doesn't like avira...

socialdistortion
June 5th, 2009, 12:44 AM
No tester likes AVIRA ... IMO

It makes them look silly...

Stefan Kurtzhals
June 5th, 2009, 02:27 AM
It was a crappy Gen fp I made, damn Refpron adware. :(

But the program that caused the FP will hardly ever be found on a normal users computer.

So, even Avira doesn't like Avira! ;-)

Sputnik
June 5th, 2009, 03:13 AM
@Stefan Kurtzhals
No need to apologize comrade! :-*

xpsunny
June 5th, 2009, 03:29 AM
I was wondering why Microsoft Forefront and Microsoft OneCare had variations in scores?

Sputnik
June 5th, 2009, 04:08 AM
@xpsunny
As far I remember they used different engines or different versions of the same engine, not quite sure.

trjam
June 5th, 2009, 04:31 AM
testing sites dont keep you safe, products do and Avira, well nuff said.:thumb:

Saraceno
June 5th, 2009, 04:50 AM
Well done Avira and others. The thing with results such as '1 false positive, failed', all depends on the false positive. 'Critical false positives' should be an instant fail.

The false positive fails should say, '2 critical false positives' which would mean, instant fail. If a program gets '0 critical false positives' and say, '3 non-critical false positives', that's a pass to me anyway.

So I think they should differentiate between critical and non-critical, or list both, because a program getting half the detections of Avira for example, might have 1 false positive as well, but that might be on a 'critical system file', and the average user walks away thinking, 'both products failed and suck @ss', when in reality, one does and one doesn't.

pkz77
June 6th, 2009, 01:34 PM
can i view the page without subscribing?

IBK
June 6th, 2009, 01:40 PM
-{ Quote: "can i view the page without subscribing?" }-
no, they require you to register (for free) to view the page/results.

loli22
June 6th, 2009, 02:25 PM
no, they require you to pay 175.00 USD :thumbd:

gery
June 6th, 2009, 04:45 PM
i registerd for free and could see the results,
so yes it is free

bellgamin
June 7th, 2009, 02:38 AM
-{ Quote: "i registerd for free and could see the results,
so yes it is free" }-Same here. Piece of cake! 8)

steve1955
June 7th, 2009, 06:41 AM
when you register they seem to want a hell of a lot of personnel info from you!

gery
June 7th, 2009, 09:57 AM
-{ Quote: "when you register they seem to want a hell of a lot of personnel info from you!" }-
not really
well some av companies require your fingerprints but i think VB requires quite a few stuff from everybody wanting to register.
everything has got a price

JerryM
June 7th, 2009, 10:21 AM
I am not going to change from KIS (I wonder when 2010 will be released?) but I have always liked Avast, and if I changed I would either go to it or maybe F-Secure.

Regards,
Jerry

pkz77
June 8th, 2009, 11:21 AM
Ahh now i see, but "The full review, including the RAP tests, VB100 awards and detailed results tables can be read here (available to subscribers only)" :(

dw2108
June 8th, 2009, 09:21 PM
Where's Rising in this maze of AV tests. If RAV thinks that a few tests from yesteryear shall keep them in the competition, then they need think again.

Dave