3 VB 100 "failed" tests; false positives?

[WaterSprite]

Hi,

This isn't about any technical problem (happily, I've never really had any technical problems with NOD32!), but I would like to satisfy my curiosity about something, and I hope someone here can help me.

NOD32 has "failed" only 3 of 33 tests at VB 100 since 1998, yet Eset claims to have never missed any ITW detections in the VB 100 tests it has participated in. If this is correct, I can only assume that the three "failed" tests were due to false positive detections and/or something else I haven't considered.

I've been doing a bit of googling to see if I can dig deeper into this little mystery, but so far, I've only come up with a few quotes about the Nov. 2001 (or Nov. 2000?) test referring to a possible false positive detection, and these were only quotes from Eset or in this forum's archives, and they didn't go into any detail about the actual test results.

According to VB 100, these were the three tests where NOD32 failed to receive the VB 100 award:

1) April 2002/SuSE Linux

2) November 2000/Windows NT

3) February 1998/DOS

Could someone here point me in the direction of the actual test results that show just exactly why NOD32 failed these three particuar tests? As I said, this is just to satisfy my curiosity, and to reconcile in my mind Eset's claim of having not missed a single ITW detection in those tests since 1998 with the three "failed" tests in question.

Thanks!

[rothko]

hiya,

not sure where it is explained in writing, but if you listen to the October 23, 2004 - Anti-Virus Software 'Let's Talk Computers' radio show (http://www.lets-talk-computers.net/guests/eset/administrator/) then Andrew Lee explains about the fails. make a brew and have a listen

ta, lee

[flyrfan111]

The claim Eset makes is that NOD hasn't missed an ITW virii in 6 years of VB testing. The failures that NOD has are related to False positives on noninfected files, not missing an actual infected file.

[WaterSprite]

-{ Quote: "The claim Eset makes is that NOD hasn't missed an ITW virii in 6 years of VB testing. The failures that NOD has are related to False positives on noninfected files, not missing an actual infected file." }-

I understand the claim about the ITW detections, and as I mentioned, I've thought about the false positive thing, but I'm still interested in seeing the actual evidence in the form of the detailed test results. Do you have any idea where/how I can obtain these actual details?

Thanks!

[WaterSprite]

-{ Quote: "not sure where it is explained in writing, but if you listen to the October 23, 2004 - Anti-Virus Software 'Let's Talk Computers' radio show (http://www.lets-talk-computers.net/guests/eset/administrator/) then Andrew Lee explains about the fails. make a brew and have a listen" }-

Thanks! The interview explains two out of three (though I'd still like to see the actual test results in detail), so now I have to find out what the third "failed" test was all about! :)

[webyourbusiness]

I'll take the odd false positive in lieu of missing itw viruses - ANY DAY!!

[Blackspear]

-{ Quote: "(though I'd still like to see the actual test results in detail)" }-You'll have to subscribe to Virus Bulletin Magazine to see the full results:

http://www.virusbtn.com/vb100/about/index.xml

Hope this helps...

Cheers ;D

[ronjor]

I did find an older post on this question.

http://www.wilderssecurity.com/showpost.php?p=141309&postcount=6

[mrtwolman]

-{ Quote: "According to VB 100, these were the three tests where NOD32 failed to receive the VB 100 award:

1) April 2002/SuSE Linux

2) November 2000/Windows NT

3) February 1998/DOS
" }-
April 2002/SuSE Linux - none product had on-access part, thus no VB 100
November 2000/Windows NT - single FP
February 1998/DOS - in February 1998 NOD 32 did not exist... :)

Best Regards

[Blackcat]

-{ Quote: "You'll have to subscribe to Virus Bulletin Magazine to see the full results:Cheers ;D" }-
Only $358/annum :o :o

Although WaterSprite, if you subscribe for 3 years it works out at a very reasonable $251 for the detailed results you are looking for ::)

It's a pity that VB does not push out a free 'summary' of their individual tests, with a little more detail than they provide at present.

At least we would have a better idea of why some AV's failed a particular test.

[Technodrome]

-{ Quote: "Thanks! The interview explains two out of three (though I'd still like to see the actual test results in detail), so now I have to find out what the third "failed" test was all about! :)" }-
Old VB tests are available on their web site (PDF format)
http://www.virusbtn.com/magazine/issues/old_pdfs.xml



tECHNODROME

[Blackcat]

-{ Quote: " We are currently adding all past issues of the magazine to the website for our online readers." }-
Not yet complete but this is good news :)