Feb 2005 UK magazine AV test

[I who know nothing]

http://www.transceiver.co.uk/txt/av05.html

[Blackcat]

I have noticed that F-Secure 2005, their "Best Buy" in this test, is becoming very popular with the Computer magazines in general over here.

[Grumble]

The three highlighted as "Best Buy", "Most Desirable" and "Best Budget Buy" all have KAV engines.

[Firefighter]

If AVG 7 beats Avast 4.6 in overall protection as it was now in this test, the number of samples must be only tens or not more than a few hundred. If so, the results are also an outcome of a lottery. In almost all tests I have seen (and mine too), Avast 4.6 has much higher overall detecting rate than AVG 7. Pure coincidence? Hardly.

Best regards,
Firefighter!

[Sputnik]

{QUOTE-> If AVG 7 beats Avast 4.6 in overall protection as it was now in this test, the number of samples must be only tens or not more than a few hundred. If so, the results are also an outcome of a lottery. In almost all tests I have seen (and mine too), Avast 4.6 has much higher overall detecting rate than AVG 7. Pure coincidence? Hardly. <-QUOTE}
I agree, avast! is miles ahead of AVG... I don't trust this test, even when my favorite came out as best... In my opinion the next "crap" av test...

[Blackcat]

{QUOTE-> If AVG 7 beats Avast 4.6 in overall protection as it was now in this test, the number of samples must be only tens or not more than a few hundred. If so, the results are also an outcome of a lottery. <-QUOTE}
Agreed. Most of the UK Magazine 'tests' I have seen have only used a few viruses and trojans.

In the UK market, the only exception to this very small sample size I have seen was VirusP's tests in PC Extreme; http://www.livepublishing.co.uk/pcextreme/pcx2.shtml

[I who know nothing]

Im no AV expert but if a given test is supposedly flawed why does KAV or KAV engined AV's always do well? If test results are a lottery then KAV and KAV engined AV's always seem to have extraordinary good luck, a coincidence?

The EZ AV which is my current AV result is interesting in that it allegedly missed in the authors words a very common trojan yet it consistently scores 100% ITW on other tests.

[RejZoR]

How can be F-Secure best buy if it's almost the most expensive of all AVs?

[Blackcat]

{QUOTE-> How can be F-Secure best buy if it's almost the most expensive of all AVs? <-QUOTE}
Out of the 9 commercial scanners they tested, it was the second cheapest to buy ;) Only beaten by eTrust EZ AntiVirus in their comparison Table.

{QUOTE->

VERDICT

There is a good spread of products for every pocket here, from adequate free programs to fully featured, highly technical ones. The one we’d go for is F-Secure Anti-Virus 2005 due to its attractive pricing, effective detection abilities and pleasant interface.

F-Secure Anti-Virus 2005 is one of the least expensive products on test, beaten on price only by the free packages and eTrust EZ Antivirus. It is better than all the cheaper ones, though, and some of the more expensive ones, notably NetZ InVircible 7 and Panda Titanium Antivirus 2004. Its annual update price dropped recently to a reasonable £18 per year, but this is still worthy of attention before you invest in the software.

This is one of the best anti-virus programs that we’ve seen to date. It is one of a small number that detected everything we threw at it, it looks good, is easy to use and is great value for money. It deserves our Best Buy award. <-QUOTE}

[RejZoR]

I have to doublecheck. Wasn't F-Secure the most expensive before?

[Blackcat]

{QUOTE-> Im no AV expert but if a given test is supposedly flawed why does KAV or KAV engined AV's always do well? <-QUOTE}
Large database for a variety of malware, great unpackers and frequent updates.
{QUOTE-> If test results are a lottery then KAV and KAV engined AV's always seem to have extraordinary good luck, a coincidence? <-QUOTE}
Not luck, KAV is simply the best overall malware detector.

All Test results are not a lottery. But those with a very restricted test-bed it is difficult to know how accurate the results are with such a small sample size.

AV's should be judged on their detection results in a variety of test sites. Test after test, KAV or the KAV clones/KAV-engined AV's are always at or near to the top spot.

[Blackcat]

{QUOTE-> I have to doublecheck. Wasn't F-Secure the most expensive before? <-QUOTE}
I know that it was considered in the past as an expensive AV. I presume they have brought the prices down to attract more Home users.

On the main UK site, it is priced at £26 which is equivalent to $48/49. While on the main USA site it is priced at $40.

The higher UK price is due to the dreaded Value Added Tax.

But with all these AV's there are cheaper prices around.

[Ned Slider]

{QUOTE-> I know that it was considered in the past as an expensive AV. I presume they have brought the prices down to attract more Home users.

On the main UK site, it is priced at £26 which is equivalent to $48/49. While on the main USA site it is priced at $40.

The higher UK price is due to the dreaded Value Added Tax.

But with all these AV's there are cheaper prices around. <-QUOTE}

Once you deduct the tax, the prices are virtually identical allowing for small exchange rate fluctuations.

Ned

[I who know nothing]

My questions were rhetorical ones, yes everyone in the universe knows KAV's impressive record yet this record is never questioned even when the test methodology is suspect. If a given AV's results in a bad test methodology are less than expected then the same should be true of KAV which doesnt seem to be the case, so what conclusions does one draw from this, either that bad test methodology only seems to adversely effect some AV's yet doesnt effect the best proggies, mere coincidence? or that any test no matter how flawed has some degree of relevance.

[Firefighter]

{QUOTE-> Im no AV expert but if a given test is supposedly flawed why does KAV or KAV engined AV's always do well? If test results are a lottery then KAV and KAV engined AV's always seem to have extraordinary good luck, a coincidence? <-QUOTE}You need at least 2..3k RANDOMLY picked samples to evaluate the detection rate of certain Anti-Viruses. In this test, at least F-secure, Kaspersky, Steganos, McAfee and Norton scored 100 % detection, which is too good to be true in REAL life, only GOD scores 100 %.

When you said that Kaspersky always scores top, it's different thing. It only scores top because it's so damn good in overall detection. Try to pick up a viral collection in the web that is justified as infected by an other av than Kaspersky, then post that to me. There is the reason why Kaspersky scores always the top.

Best regards,
Firefighter!

[Technodrome]

This is the worst AV test I have ever seen. They make their own virus samples and blame avs for missing them. BS. Worse then cnets tests.

Our test files included some of the most virulent and commonly found viruses, as well as well-known backdoor Trojans and harmful Visual Basic scripts that we generated using well-known virus generation tools.


tECHNODROME

[Happy Bytes]

{QUOTE-> and harmful Visual Basic scripts that we generated using well-known virus generation tools.[/I]

tECHNODROME <-QUOTE}

Well...

[Edwin024]

Has Eset a stand on their let's call it mediocre test result of NOD32 in this mediocre test? ;)

[Technodrome]

@Mike

;D ;D ;D



tECHNODROME

[rdsu]

I don't like this kind of reviews madded by magazines...

The method is stupid, some conclusions doesn't have any logic, etc...

Unbelievable!

[Diver]

{QUOTE-> Has Eset a stand on their let's call it mediocre test result of NOD32 in this mediocre test? ;) <-QUOTE}

It looks to me like NOD32 was downgraded due to its rather complex interface. This might be a fine interface for a technically minded person, but it presents a major possibility for misconfiguration by a less sophisticated home user. Perhaps in an enterprise environment the IT guys can do the setup and lock out the users. I am not wild about complex interfaces myself. KAV 4.5 was enough to make me scream, and so does NOD32.

[rdsu]

{QUOTE-> It looks to me like NOD32 was downgraded due to its rather complex interface. This might be a fine interface for a technically minded person, but it presents a major possibility for misconfiguration by a less sophisticated home user. Perhaps in an enterprise environment the IT guys can do the setup and lock out the users. I am not wild about complex interfaces myself. KAV 4.5 was enough to make me scream, and so does NOD32. <-QUOTE}
I love the interface of NOD32 and I have the same as you when you say that for newbies it could be complicated...

Maybe if they make a simple interface and we can choose between them on installation or after, could be a good solution...

[Diver]

I think Avast Pro has a both simple interface and an advanced one. On the free version only the simple interface is available.

[mikel108]

{QUOTE-> It looks to me like NOD32 was downgraded due to its rather complex interface. This might be a fine interface for a technically minded person, but it presents a major possibility for misconfiguration by a less sophisticated home user. Perhaps in an enterprise environment the IT guys can do the setup and lock out the users. I am not wild about complex interfaces myself. KAV 4.5 was enough to make me scream, and so does NOD32. <-QUOTE}


I could not agree more Diver. I trialed NOD32, and liked the low impact, and quick scan. I found that I felt safe with it, and the interface was great (I really like the Green...nudge, nudge Happy Bytes LOL).

However being an average user, I really got lost in all the settings. If Eset is aiming their product at the techie crowd, then they are bang on for their market.

[RejZoR]

Man, how can NOD32 be complicated? Sorry,but you have to be pretty dumb not to understand its interface. You can't just have 1 button to control everything.
Left side its menu selection where you select its subsystems,update module and main options. On right side,there are detection and scan statistics and controls to stop start specific subsystems. You can also find option button on right side panel which leads to settings for selected subsystem (AMON,IMON,EMON etc).
Complicated? I don't think so,sorry.

[mikel108]

{QUOTE-> Man, how can NOD32 be complicated? Sorry,but you have to be pretty dumb not to understand its interface. You can't just have 1 button to control everything.
Left side its menu selection where you select its subsystems,update module and main options. On right side,there are detection and scan statistics and controls to stop start specific subsystems. You can also find option button on right side panel which leads to settings for selected subsystem (AMON,IMON,EMON etc).
Complicated? I don't think so,sorry. <-QUOTE}

Not nice, RejZor.

I do not like the way there are so many features that you can check and uncheck. It makes it very hard for the rest of the family to use.

[rdsu]

{QUOTE-> I think Avast Pro has a both simple interface and an advanced one. On the free version only the simple interface is available. <-QUOTE}
Yes, but in avast! pro the advanced interface should be improved a lot, in my opinion...

[Edwin024]

I agree with you RejZoR but it would be nice if the new and improved NOD32 version will have a bit better ouset: just call the things what they are Resident Module, MS Office Module, Internet Monitor and Scan Module, or something like that. Makes it more understandable.

[rdsu]

{QUOTE-> It makes it very hard for the rest of the family to use. <-QUOTE}
Same opinion here :)

For us could be perfect, but for newbies a lot of buttons could be a nightmare because they didn't know what to do...

[rdsu]

{QUOTE-> I agree with you RejZoR but it would be nice if the new and improved NOD32 version will have a bit better ouset: just call the things what they are Resident Module, MS Office Module, Internet Monitor and Scan Module, or something like that. Makes it more understandable. <-QUOTE}
I already suggested this... :)

Let we see what's happen...

[bellgamin]

{QUOTE-> In almost all tests I have seen (and mine too), Avast 4.6 has much higher overall detecting rate than AVG 7. <-QUOTE}
Oh my, here we go again with that test versus this test versus some other test in which "all tests I have seen" is undefined, & sometimes is used to refer to just those tests that suit one's particular point of view. :P

To throw castor oil on the fire, I take note that AVG (Grisoft) outdistanced Avast (Alwil) on VB's tests (http://www.virusbtn.com/vb100/archives/products.xml?table) headed "Windows XP Professional Jun 04." On the other hand, Avast & AVG were both surpassed by AntiVir on the AV Comparatives for 2/2005 as shown by attached screenshot. And round & round we go. 8)

Please link ONLY to our main site www.av-comparatives.org and not to the other subpages.
It's forbidden to use/provide our test results/documents/comments on other sites without our permission. If you find anything on other sites, please inform the forum/site admin to remove it.

http://www.av-comparatives.org/

[IBK]

EDIT: thanks ;)

[SDS909]

I made the mistake of installing F-Secure a month ago. Not only did I see about 14 processes clogging up my system, but when I uninstalled it, it didn't uninstall everything and my net connection was hosed.

Turned out, only a format would fix it.

Never again will I examine an F-Secure product.

[f32-2]

>>>> F-Secure is a relatively new discovery for us, and when we fi rst saw its anti-virus software last year we were impressed with its excellent detection ability and friendly interface. <<<<

ROFLMFAO! Last year they heard of f-secure??? lol lol lol ... no comment!

___________________________________________________________

I agree that NOD32 need to change its interface! AMON, IMON... really does not mean anything...
They should make new simple interface like Panda Titanium or Ewido... but leave option to switch to old style for users who like it.
They should add detection of spywares in resident scanner and also automatocally cure for on-demand scanner with ALL-FILES on by default.

[m.oreilly]

the nod interface is fine, my 13 year old daughter had a trial version on her rig,
it made complete sense to her (she doesn't like imon "on"), and set things to her
tastes. i LIKE nods' options (god, avgs' "new"interface"?), waiting for nod x64 version.

[Firefighter]

{QUOTE-> the nod interface is fine, my 13 year old daughter had a trial version on her rig, it made complete sense to her (she doesn't like imon "on"), and set things to her tastes... <-QUOTE}Unfortunately that's only life. After when you are 13 year old, the human ability to adopt new tasks is decreasing drastically. The more age we have, the less things we can adopt. That's why, "KISS", keep it simple stupid, rocks!

Best regards,
Firefighter!

[Blackcat]

{QUOTE-> the nod interface is fine, my 13 year old daughter had a trial version on her rig, it made complete sense to her (she doesn't like imon "on"), and set things to her
tastes. <-QUOTE}
But just to be on the safe side, I would still keep a close eye on her computer :lurking: :o :o

[Firecat]

{QUOTE-> But just to be on the safe side, I would still keep a close eye on her computer :lurking: :o :o <-QUOTE}
Well....I am only 13 myself y'know - and I do know to set my AV up as I desire, safe and secure ;)

[rdsu]

{QUOTE-> I agree that NOD32 need to change its interface! AMON, IMON... really does not mean anything... <-QUOTE}
That's why I suggested this:

http://img174.exs.cx/img174/3313/nod32guisuggestion29wj.png

[IBK]

I do not agree - I do not think it is needed. If users click on it, they can read:
AMON: Resident protection
DMON: MS Office document monitor
EMON: MS Outlook email monitor
IMON: Internet monitor

Or the users can take 10 minutes to read the manual ;) , which should be done anyway; after doing that peoples should theoretically not say that an AV is complicated to use (that's also a reason why I do not understand why magazines do say that that the GUI of some AVs are difficult and do penalize them for that - for me it is the user fault if he do not read the manuals, and not a reason to give to the AVs lower rates). Just my opinion... :)

[RejZoR_Clone]

bellgamin,we all know why avast! failed on June 2004. Stupid reason belive me. And just VB100% logo doesn't mean anything. Check other detections % or polymorphics where avast! kicks AVG all the way.

[TAP]

{QUOTE-> bellgamin,we all know why avast! failed on June 2004. Stupid reason belive me. And just VB100% logo doesn't mean anything. Check other detections % or polymorphics where avast! kicks AVG all the way. <-QUOTE}


Even if avast! failed just because of it missed 50% of ITW sample by its developer's ignorance so that's definitely meaningless for today.

It's useless to talking about the past, we live with the present.