New VirusP AV-test 5-2003!

[Firefighter]

Hi again! VirusP has published his 3:rd AV (+some AT:s) -test made 4.-12. May 2003.

The 50795 malware samples were chosen using VS2000 according to Kaspersky, F-Prot, RAV and McAfee antivirus programs. Each malware sample was unique by malware name, meaning that AT LEAST 1 antivirus programs detected it as a new malware.

ALL malware samples were unpacked and the only samples that were kept were the ones that were packed using external-dos-packers (that means not winzip, winrar, winace etc).

The malware samples had the correct file extension using a special program (Renexts) and were unique, according to checksum32 filesize.

All "fake" malware samples were removed, as well as "garbage" files.


Here are the results of "the Jury of Greece"!


Summary detection rate of checked 50 795 malvares:


1. 99.67% - F-Secure version 5.40

2. 99.55% - Kaspersky version 4.0.5.37

3. 97.66% - e-Scan Pro version 2.5.181.5

4. 97.14% - McAfee version 7.00.5000

5. 95.18% - RAV version 8.6.104

6. 92.92% - F-Prot version 3.13

7. 90.59% - PC-Cillin version 2003 10.01.1039

8. 90.01% - Norton version 2003 Professional

9. 89.37% - Sophos version 3.69

10. 89.23% - Dr. Web version 4.29c

11. 88.75% - Panda Titanium version 2.04.04

12. 87.09% - Command version 4.75.0

13. 86.85% - Avast version 4.0.202

14. 84.68% - BullGuard version 3.5

15. 83.26% - BitDefender version 6.4.3

16. 79.31% - AntiVir version 6.19.09.60

17. 78.48% - Vexira version 2.06.00.01

18. 75.32% - Norman version 5.50

19. 74.29% - Nod version 1.405 -

20. 73.98% - Solo version 2.5

21. 73.98% - Fire version 2.7

22. 66.85% - AVG version 6.0.478

23. 63.08% - E-Trust version 6.1.4.0

24. 62.44% - Ikarus version 5.05

25. 60.16% - VirusBuster version 10.00.88928

26. 53.65% - Protector Plus version 7.2.E01

27. 49.80% - ViRobot Expert version 4.0

28. 45.69% - V3Pro Deluxe version SP2

29. 41.29% - Gladiator version 3.5.0

30. 40.42% - VirScan Plus version 12.784

31. 37.79% - RHVBS version 3.95.487

32. 33.66% - Quick Heal version 6.09

33. 28.87% - Digital Patrol version 4.0.65

34. 24.27% - Wave version 2.0

35. 12.38% - PestPatrol version 4.2.0.33

36. 11.77% - TDS version 3.2.0

37. 10.10% - AntiTrojan Shield version 1.0.0.16

38. 9.16% - PC DoorGuard version 3.0.0.6

39. 7.85% - Trojan Remover version 5.0.3

40. 7.04% - Anti Trojan version 5.5.408

41. 4.06% - Tauscan version 1.6.0723

42. 3.77% - The Cleaner version 3.5.3517

43. 3.56% - Hacker Eliminator (former LockDown Millenium) version 1.2

44. 1.82% - Trojan Hunter version 3.5.707

45. 1.37% - IP Armor version 5.40.0112

VirusBuster II Crashed in the test, so there were no result. :D ;D


"The truth is out there, but it hurts!"

Best Regards,
Firefighter!

[Paul Wilders]

Could you define "malware" ;).

regards.

paul

[Pilli]

Thanks Firefighter, But ...

All the AT's did badly so I suspect they were not mainly Trojans in the test i.e. Viruses - Chalk & Cheese come to mind. ;)

[Firefighter]

To Forum Administrator from Firefighter!

I chanced the "virus" word from that original site to "malware", because in that term there were such kind of things that were for excample in RAV total database!

The original site is calling such kind of things as viruses and malwares, what I am calling now as malwares only:

"The virus samples were divided into these categories, according to the type of the virus :

File = BeOS, FreeBSD, Linux, Palm, OS2, Unix, BinaryImage, BAS viruses.
MS-DOS = MS-DOS and HLL*. viruses.
Windows = Win.*.* viruses.
Macro = Macro and Formula viruses.
Malware = DoS, Constructors, Exploit, Flooders, Hoax, Jokes, Nukers, Sniffers, Spoofers, Virus Construction Tools, Virus Tools, Corrupted, Droppers, Intended, PolyEngines.
Script = BAT, Corel, HTML, Java, Scripts, VBS, WBS, Worms, PHP, Perl viruses.
Trojans-Backdoors = Trojan and Backdoor viruses".


"The truth is out there, but it hurts!"

Best Regards,
Firefighter!

[Firefighter]

To Pilli from Firefighter!

We have to remember, that those 50 795 checked malwares were picked from Kaspersky's, F-Prot's, RAV's and McAfee's database randomly, if I understood the original test report right!

About that picked sample, there were all kind of bad stuff!

Total number of trojans and backdoors were 8 943.

Rank of Anti-Trojans against 8 943 trojans and backdoors.

1. 73.42% - Digital Patrol 4.0.65

2. 55.17% - TDS version 3.2.0

3. 41.55% - AntiTrojan Shield version 1.0.0.16

4. 37.20% - Trojan Remover version 5.0.3

5. 36.21% - PC DoorGuard version 3.0.0.6

6. 32.01% - PestPatrol version 4.2.0.33

7. 30.75% - Anti Trojan version 5.5.408

8. 22.89% - Tauscan version 1.6.0723

9. 19.53% - The Cleaner version 3.5.3517

10. 15.87% - Hacker Eliminator (former LockDown Millenium) version 1.2

11. 7.31% - Trojan Hunter version 3.5.707

12. 6.79% - IP Armor version 5.40.0112

We have to remember that there will never be an 100% proof result, when the checked trojans and backdoors were picked from 4 different AV-program's database.

Inversely, we don't know how good detection rate AV-programs have, when all those checked trojans and backdoors are from 4 - 6 AT-program's database! ;D


"The truth is out there, but it hurts!"

Best Regards,
Firefighter!

[Pilli]

Thanks FF, It would be interesting to know.
1. What AT databases were used
2. Whether the scanners were just set to their default settings.

I have a feeling that comprehensive testing af AT's is, possibly, more complex than of AV's - That is why it is difficult to find valid reviews ;)

"The truth maybe out there but is obscured by many layers of deep & smelly stuff" :'(

[VirusP]

-{ Quote: " quoting: Pilli link=board=24;threadid=9385;start=0#msg61449 date=1053352394]
Thanks FF, It would be interesting to know.
1. What AT databases were used
2. Whether the scanners were just set to their default settings.

I have a feeling that comprehensive testing af AT's is, possibly, more complex than of AV's - That is why it is difficult to find valid reviews ;)

"The truth maybe out there but is obscured by many layers of deep & smelly stuff" :'(
" }-

The 50795 malware samples were chosen using VS2000 according to Kaspersky, F-Prot, RAV and McAfee antivirus programs.
The scanners were set to full scanning capabilities e.g. full heuristics.

[Paul Wilders]

VirusP,

Please post results from your upcoming new test - upcoming Saturday, if I'm not mistaken.

regards.

paul

[I_lack_commonsense]

-{ Quote: " quoting: Firefighter link=board=24;threadid=9385;start=0#msg61416 date=1053342452]
The 50795 malware samples were chosen using VS2000 according to Kaspersky, F-Prot, RAV and McAfee antivirus programs. " }-

Is it just coincidence that those 4 came out on the top 6?
Do they have a distinct advantage since the samples were chosen according to those programs, or is that irrelevant?

[VirusP]

-{ Quote: " quoting: Forum Admin link=board=24;threadid=9385;start=0#msg62148 date=1053529958]
VirusP,

Please post results from your upcoming new test - upcoming Saturday, if I'm not mistaken.

regards.

paul
" }-

I will make updated tests (meaning i will test the new GAV 4 as well) on Saturday or Sunday. If i forget to pub the results in here, please bother to take a look at my website, ok? ;)

[VirusP]

-{ Quote: " quoting: I_lack_commonsense link=board=24;threadid=9385;start=0#msg62149 date=1053529989]
-{ Quote: " quoting: Firefighter link=board=24;threadid=9385;start=0#msg61416 date=1053342452]
The 50795 malware samples were chosen using VS2000 according to Kaspersky, F-Prot, RAV and McAfee antivirus programs. " }-

Is it just coincidence that those 4 came out on the top 6?
Do they have a distinct advantage since the samples were chosen according to those programs, or is that irrelevant?
" }-

I used these 4 programs because they have the biggest -atmo- unique-virus-names list compared to the other ones. The fact that they are among the top programs was taken under consideration, still, this was not the main reason for their use. Although it seems like it, i don't think that using these 4 for the making of the vx database improved their ratios considerably.

[Paul Wilders]

VirusP,

-{ Quote: "I will make updated tests (meaning i will test the new GAV 4 as well) on Saturday or Sunday. If i forget to pub the results in here, please bother to take a look at my website, ok?" }-

I'm sure you'll do this approx. 4,000 community of registered users the honour of posting your results ;).

regards.

paul

[VirusP]

-{ Quote: " quoting: Forum Admin link=board=24;threadid=9385;start=0#msg62155 date=1053530845]
VirusP,

-{ Quote: "I will make updated tests (meaning i will test the new GAV 4 as well) on Saturday or Sunday. If i forget to pub the results in here, please bother to take a look at my website, ok?" }-

I'm sure you'll do this approx. 4,000 community of registered users the honour of posting your results ;).

regards.

paul
" }-

:) :)

[Jason_DiamondCS]

-{ Quote: " quoting: VirusP link=board=24;threadid=9385;start=0#msg62153 date=1053530494]
-{ Quote: " quoting: I_lack_commonsense link=board=24;threadid=9385;start=0#msg62149 date=1053529989]
-{ Quote: " quoting: Firefighter link=board=24;threadid=9385;start=0#msg61416 date=1053342452]
The 50795 malware samples were chosen using VS2000 according to Kaspersky, F-Prot, RAV and McAfee antivirus programs. " }-

Is it just coincidence that those 4 came out on the top 6?
Do they have a distinct advantage since the samples were chosen according to those programs, or is that irrelevant?
" }-

I used these 4 programs because they have the biggest -atmo- unique-virus-names list compared to the other ones. The fact that they are among the top programs was taken under consideration, still, this was not the main reason for their use. Although it seems like it, i don't think that using these 4 for the making of the vx database improved their ratios considerably.
" }-

It seems to me if you pick virus's to use from program's database's then the results are going to be in favour of whatever database's you picked them from. Unless you can assume that the other AV programs DO NOT detect virus's other then the ones in those databases you selected, which I don't think is that good a thing to assume.

To put it another way, if 25% of the samples were taken from NOD's database and NOD still got 75% of the other database's malware samples (one could say this is highly probable,maths wise), it's detection rate would jump by 6% up to 81%. Whats 6% between friends ;) .

Unless there is something I am missing here isn't what I am saying correct VirusP ?

*edit* I just chose NOD because it was close to 75% detection rate and easier to do the maths on, I don't favour any particular AV program :)

-Jason-

[VirusP]

-{ Quote: " quoting: Jason / DiamondCS link=board=24;threadid=9385;start=0#msg62290 date=1053593536]
-{ Quote: " quoting: VirusP link=board=24;threadid=9385;start=0#msg62153 date=1053530494]
-{ Quote: " quoting: I_lack_commonsense link=board=24;threadid=9385;start=0#msg62149 date=1053529989]
-{ Quote: " quoting: Firefighter link=board=24;threadid=9385;start=0#msg61416 date=1053342452]
The 50795 malware samples were chosen using VS2000 according to Kaspersky, F-Prot, RAV and McAfee antivirus programs. " }-

Is it just coincidence that those 4 came out on the top 6?
Do they have a distinct advantage since the samples were chosen according to those programs, or is that irrelevant?
" }-

I used these 4 programs because they have the biggest -atmo- unique-virus-names list compared to the other ones. The fact that they are among the top programs was taken under consideration, still, this was not the main reason for their use. Although it seems like it, i don't think that using these 4 for the making of the vx database improved their ratios considerably.
" }-

It seems to me if you pick virus's to use from program's database's then the results are going to be in favour of whatever database's you picked them from. Unless you can assume that the other AV programs DO NOT detect virus's other then the ones in those databases you selected, which I don't think is that good a thing to assume.

To put it another way, if 25% of the samples were taken from NOD's database and NOD still got 75% of the other database's malware samples (one could say this is highly probable,maths wise), it's detection rate would jump by 6% up to 81%. Whats 6% between friends ;) .

Unless there is something I am missing here isn't what I am saying correct VirusP ?

*edit* I just chose NOD because it was close to 75% detection rate and easier to do the maths on, I don't favour any particular AV program :)

-Jason-
" }-
Maybe you misunderstood me. I explained that i put together the virus lists from four av programs, meaning that even if i had used nod, i still would have to add many samples nod finds as the same and other av as unique. So, i might would have added 250-500 more samples tops, which i don't think is a significant number compared to the 50795 samples used. And to be more accurate, nod's unique virus list is alot smaller than RAV's or KAV's or F-Prot's, so there still would be many more samples i would have to add that nod would find as non-unique.

[Jonas]

What is this Digital Patrol out doing TDS? I have never heard of Digital Patrol before these tests results were published. As much time as i spend on security boards i am surprized that this AT has not come up before. Is this AT really anygood or is this test rubbish?

Peace,
Jonas

[root]

Hi Jonas. Out of fairness to VirusP, I don't think we should consider his efforts rubbish.
It does not seem to me that this test is aimed at nor suitable for comparing the efficiency of ATs in detecting trojans.
It is rather a broad look at how various programs detect a myriad of different types of malware.
I think this testing can have some information for certain people, such as myself, but I would not use the results of this test alone to determine what security product I will use.
I too never heard much about Digital Patrol before this, but in an effort to be open minded, I think I personally will check this program out a little more as it does seem to have some redeeming qualities, so to speak.

[Jonas]

Root,
thanks for your reply. i did not mean to come accross as closed minded. Indeed, i have spent about 30 minutes reading about the program. I would be interested to hear your thoughts on Digital Patrol as well as its "redeeming qualities" :P

peace,
jonas

[JimIT]

-{ Quote: " quoting: VirusP link=board=24;threadid=9385;start=0#msg62151 date=1053530330]
-{ Quote: " quoting: Forum Admin link=board=24;threadid=9385;start=0#msg62148 date=1053529958]
VirusP,

Please post results from your upcoming new test - upcoming Saturday, if I'm not mistaken.

regards.

paul
" }-

I will make updated tests (meaning i will test the new GAV 4 as well) on Saturday or Sunday. If i forget to pub the results in here, please bother to take a look at my website, ok? ;)
" }-

VirusP,

If you have the time (or want to exert the energy), I'd be interested to know how Trojanshield would do in this test, as I purchased it a while back.

I'll leave my personal opinion of it out of this post, but it would be nice to have an actual "review" of it, as I cannot find an up to date test on it anywhere.

Thanks for the consideration. :)

[root]

Jonas, I'll try to look it over and post something.
I'm in the middle of trying to write something up on Outpost 2.
By the way, I wasn't insinuating you were closed minded. ;D
I was referring to a problem I have with forming opinions without all the facts. ::) Emphasis on "I" there.
I'm outa here for the nite.
Have a good one.

[Technodrome]

-{ Quote: " quoting: Jonas link=board=24;threadid=9385;start=15#msg62487 date=1053652411] I have never heard of Digital Patrol before these tests results were published.
" }-

Digital Patrol is Rusian AntiVirus "STOP"

http://www.proantivirus.com/



Technodrome

[controler]

Or for those that can't read Russian

http://www.antiviraldp.com/

[Jason_DiamondCS]

Hi VirusP,
isn't your test saying "Here is the malware these 4 programs can detect, how good are you at detecting them". I must admit that this in some ways is a lot better then most AV tests but it is still flawed. Shouldn't a test be made on malware samples not picked from any database, but ranked on their danger to end user. So even if you used 52000 random malware samples they are ranked accordingly in their danger and reflect a "score" based on that. I think that having a large database is always good to pick up old (but working) malware, but what good is it having malware samples which don't work on current systems, or are sub PARTS of malware, etc. Those samples should be rated lower if not removed from the test.

It's important to RANK the best programs in the security field but if you want to be "the most trustworthy" as according to your site, I suggest you come up with a better way to test. You will find the only way to get a better test is to put a LOT of time into it, to research the malware.

From your posts on DSLR I can tell you like KAV a lot, do you use KAV's database when collecting malware? How much does KAV detect of your whole sample set? Also on DSLR you stated you disliked all anti-trojan only programs, does your dislike of AT's have anything to do with all AT's getting a poor score in the trojan tests or is it because of the poor score you dislike them? :)

-Jason-

[Firefighter]

To Technodrome from Firefighter!

I have to add some corrections to your statement about Digital Patrol.

I have asked some questions from Digital Patrol support, and get some answers at the same day. Here they are!


You wrote:

Quest. 1. Does Digital Patrol have any conflicts with such antivirus programs as Kaspersky 4.0, DrWeb 4.29c, RAV AntiVirus or F-secure antivirus?

Repl. 1. Doesn't.

Quest. 2. Is there any manual downloadable in the web?

Repl. 2. Help System available on web (http://www.antiviraldp.com/help/) and DP program (file dpatrol.chm)

Quest. 3. Is it possible to have two Anti-Trojans at the same time in one PC, I mean for example Trojan Remover and Digital Patrol at the same time?

Notice: By the way, Trojan Remover hasn't any resident scanner at all, it scans only after you have rebooted your PC!

Repl. 3. Yes, it is possible.

--
AntiviralDP.com
http://www.antiviraldp.com

And here is one evidence more about that. http://www.antiviraldp.com/anti-trojan.htm

After that all, I think Digital Patrol is an Anti-Trojan, not Anti-Virus!

Besides, we all have seen how good such kind of AV:s as KAV or DrWeb are on the Anti-Virus field, why not then Digital Patrol on the Anti-Trojan field? The russians are very good programers in my mind! ;D


"The truth is out there, but it hurts!"

Best Regards,
Firefighter!

[xor]

-{ Quote: " quoting: Firefighter link=board=24;threadid=9385;start=15#msg62530 date=1053672068]The russians are wery good programers in my mind! ;D
" }-

Íå òîëüêî ðóññêèå, ÷òî ðîäèëèñü â Ìîñêâå ìîãóò ïðîãðàììèðîâàòü è àíàëèçèðîâàòü òðîÿíñêèõ êîíåé, òàê æå ýòî ìîãóò ðóññêèå ðîäèâøèåñÿ â Ãåðìàíè. ;D ;D ;D

[Firefighter]

To Xor from Firefighter!

Because I am the last to be a russian and not even a programer, could you "translate" that to me, Please! ;D ;)


"The truth is out there, but it hurts!"

Besty Regards,
Firefighter!

[JacK]

-{ Quote: " quoting: Firefighter link=board=24;threadid=9385;start=15#msg62530 date=1053672068]
After that all, I think Digital Patrol is an Anti-Trojan, not Anti-Virus!
" }-

Hello,

I have tried Pest Patrol about 1 year ago.

Let's say it'a an anti-malwares and NO antivirus.

It detects spywares, trojans, backdoors and a lot of other stuffs, like bruteforce dictionnaries, keyloggers, etc... Gave to many false positive one year ago. I have no opinion whether it's improoved.
It may be bought in a bundle with ZA.

Rgds,

[Firefighter]

To Jack from Firefighter!

Did you mean, that Pest Patrol and Digital Patrol are the same?

In my mind they are totally different products as you see from those VirusP 5-2003 test results! ;D


"The truth is out there, but it hurts!"

Best Redards,
Firefighter!

[JacK]

-{ Quote: " quoting: Firefighter link=board=24;threadid=9385;start=15#msg62563 date=1053683882]
To Jack from Firefighter!

Did you mean, that Pest Patrol and Digital Patrol are the same?

In my mind they are totally different products as you see from those VirusP 5-2003 test results! ;D

" }- :

Hello FF,

My apologies : you are right of course, I am getting old and did not pay enough attention : I focused on "Patrol" only :'(

So sorry,

[Technodrome]

-{ Quote: " quoting: Firefighter link=board=24;threadid=9385;start=15#msg62530 date=1053672068]
To Technodrome from Firefighter!

I have to add some corrections to your statement about Digital Patrol.
" }-

To Firefighter from Technodrome!


What statement? :)



Technodrome

[Firefighter]

To Technodrome from Firefighter!

Never mind, I thought you said Digital Patrol as an AntiVirus! ::)


Best Regards,
Firefighter!

[Technodrome]

-{ Quote: " quoting: Firefighter link=board=24;threadid=9385;start=30#msg62591 date=1053692693]
To Technodrome from Firefighter!

Never mind, I thought you said Digital Patrol as an AntiVirus! ::)


Best Regards,
Firefighter!
" }-

Oh That! Yes Digital Patrol is the same as STOP Antivirus.
http://www.proantivirus.com/gfx3/screen2/monitor_535x387.gif
http://www.proantivirus.com/gfx3/screen2/scanner_680x540.gif
http://www.proantivirus.com/gfx3/screen2/dialog_552x283.gif


Technodrome

[xor]

Êðàñèâûå êàðòèíêè òû çäåñü âûâåñèë, âûãëÿäÿò î÷åíü ïðèòÿãèâàþùå ROFL! ;D ;D ;D

[Patrice]

;D LOL! xor, that was a good one! ;D LOL

[VirusP]

-{ Quote: " quoting: Jason / DiamondCS link=board=24;threadid=9385;start=15#msg62518 date=1053665715]
Hi VirusP,
isn't your test saying "Here is the malware these 4 programs can detect, how good are you at detecting them". I must admit that this in some ways is a lot better then most AV tests but it is still flawed. Shouldn't a test be made on malware samples not picked from any database, but ranked on their danger to end user. So even if you used 52000 random malware samples they are ranked accordingly in their danger and reflect a "score" based on that. I think that having a large database is always good to pick up old (but working) malware, but what good is it having malware samples which don't work on current systems, or are sub PARTS of malware, etc. Those samples should be rated lower if not removed from the test.

It's important to RANK the best programs in the security field but if you want to be "the most trustworthy" as according to your site, I suggest you come up with a better way to test. You will find the only way to get a better test is to put a LOT of time into it, to research the malware.

From your posts on DSLR I can tell you like KAV a lot, do you use KAV's database when collecting malware? How much does KAV detect of your whole sample set? Also on DSLR you stated you disliked all anti-trojan only programs, does your dislike of AT's have anything to do with all AT's getting a poor score in the trojan tests or is it because of the poor score you dislike them? :)

-Jason-
" }-

Lemme explain. I said i used 4 programs to make the vx database, meaning that i got samples some-or-all of them detect.

As for your proposal to put every sample into a category according to its danger, well, i don't think that's ever gonna be possible. Danger may vary due to different platforms and conditions. Added to this, danger is usually a synonym to the number of infected machines which also varies.

About AT's, i have always got a poor opinion on them, just because they cannot protect a computer without having an AV installed as well. And this is not acceptable for me. It never had to do with their performance at any AV test.

I cannot use more than 6-7 AV programs to make the vx database because NO OTHER AV report file is useful to me, due to file formating. I wish other AV had the same report file formating as KAV, RAV, MCAFEE, NOD, DRWEB, SOPHOS, FPROT do.

Regards

[Firefighter]

To everyone from Firefighter!

Lets's take a little of brake! If eveone is going to pick those programs off that has Kaspersky, F-prot, McAfee or RAV engine, so the results are so good as you never can think!

After that, there is no chance to some arques!

"The truth, is out there, but it hurts!"

Best Regards,
Firefighter!

[solarpowered candle]

Im still trying to suss this out . Does Digital patrol also scan for virus as well as trojon and wormz and malware . (similar to say Kav Lite )

[VirusP]

-{ Quote: " quoting: Forum Admin link=board=24;threadid=9385;start=0#msg62148 date=1053529958]
VirusP,

Please post results from your upcoming new test - upcoming Saturday, if I'm not mistaken.

regards.

paul
" }-

Here are the updated results including GAV 4.

Rank

1. F-Secure version 5.40 - 99.67%
2. Kaspersky version 4.0.5.37 - 99.55%
3. e-Scan Pro version 2.5.181.5 - 97.66%
4. McAfee version 7.00.5000 - 97.14%
5. RAV version 8.6.104 - 95.18%
6. F-Prot version 3.13 - 92.92%
7. PC-Cillin version 2003 10.01.1039 - 90.59%
8. Norton version 2003 Professional - 90.01%
9. Sophos Sweep version 3.69 - 89.37%
10. Dr. Web version 4.29c - 89.23%
11. Panda Titanium version 2.04.04 - 88.75%
12. Command version 4.75.0 - 87.09%
13. Avast version 4.0.202 - 86.85%
14. BullGuard version 3.5 - 84.68%
15. BitDefender version 6.4.3 - 83.26%
16. AntiVir version 6.19.09.60 - 79.31%
17. Vexira version 2.06.00.01 - 78.48%
18. Norman version 5.50 - 75.32%
19. NodIce version 1.405 - 74.29%
20. Solo version 2.5 - 73.98%
21. Fire version 2.7 - 73.98%
22. AVG version 6.0.478 - 66.85%
23. E-Trust version 6.1.4.0 - 63.08%
24. Ikarus version 5.05 - 62.44%
25. VirusBuster version 10.00.88928 - 60.16%
26. Protector Plus version 7.2.E01 - 53.65%
27. ViRobot Expert version 4.0 - 49.80%
*** Gladiator version 4.0.3 - 48.62% *** (The updated version of GAV was tested after GAV's team kind request)
28. V3Pro Deluxe version SP2 - 45.69%
29. Gladiator version 3.5.0 - 41.29%
30. VirScan Plus version 12.784 - 40.42%
31. RHVBS version 3.95.487 - 37.79%
32. Quick Heal version 6.09 - 33.66%
33. Digital Patrol version 4.0.65 - 28.87%
34. Wave version 2.0 - 24.27%
35. VirusBuster II version ? - CRASHED
36. PestPatrol version 4.2.0.33 - 12.38%
37. TDS version 3.2.0 - 11.77%
38. AntiTrojan Shield version 1.0.0.16 - 10.10%
39. PC Door Guard version 3.0.0.6 - 9.16%
40. Trojan Remover version 5.0.3 - 7.85%
41. Anti Trojan version 5.5.408 - 7.04%
42. Tauscan version 1.6.0723 - 4.06%
43. The Cleaner version 3.5.3517 - 3.77%
44. Hacker Eliminator (former LockDown Millenium) version 1.2 - 3.56%
45. Trojan Hunter version 3.5.707 - 1.82%
46. IP Armor version 5.40.0112 - 1.37%

[root]

Thanks VirusP for posting this. Can we have a link to the information on this test, please?
I am curious as to why DrWeb scores as low as it does. Your test results are not out of line with other similar tests, so I do not doubt your tests, just wondering where DrWeb is weak so I can jump on the coders there and get them to fix the shortcomings.

[wizard]

-{ Quote: " quoting: root link=board=24;threadid=9385;start=30#msg62938 date=1053873070]I am curious as to why DrWeb scores as low as it does.
" }-

DrWeb's databases have less zoo malware signatures included as KAV for example. IMHO nothing to worry about. :)

wizard

[Technodrome]

DrWeb's results from VirusP test

File (136)

MS-DOS (22816)

Windows.* (1708)

Macro (5982)

Malware (7752)

Script (3458)

Trojans-Backdoors (8943)

Total (50795)

94
69.12%
21887
95.93%
1419
83.08%
5868
98.09%
6890
88.88%
3086
89.24%
6081
68.00%
45325
89.23%


According to this test DrWeb's weak spots are trojans and backdoors. Anyways DrWeb needs zoo improvments as well.



Technodrome

[xor]

Because they are including clients, editservers, servers this is not the best result in trojans for drweb.

[Technodrome]

-{ Quote: " quoting: xor link=board=24;threadid=9385;start=30#msg62943 date=1053875468]
Because they are including clients, editservers, servers this is not the best result in trojans for drweb.
" }-

I know. Thats why I said according to this test. ;)

DrWeb has pretty good protection against trojans and backdoors(Especially Heuristics part.)


Technodrome

[xor]

yes heuristic is good - sometimes to good ;D
And you can of course only create heuristic for the servers - this means this testset does include a lot of clients - this explains also why GAV 4 Heuristic does not better score well at least 500 more detections in Trojans than 2 weeks before :o

Overall i am happy with this 8% improving in 2 weeks. Next to weeks is the goal to score 100% with Win32 Viruses and Trojans 100% i am already including here as hell ;D

[Technodrome]

-{ Quote: " quoting: xor link=board=24;threadid=9385;start=30#msg62948 date=1053877069]
Overall i am happy with this 8% improving in 2 weeks.
Next to weeks is the goal to score 100% with Win32 Viruses and Trojans 100% i am already including here as hell ;D
" }-

Good work there. ;) But what is going to happen in one year? You're going to detect human viruses too.LOL :D

Thhshs....So you cut your sleeping time again. ;D



Technodrome

[xor]

-{ Quote: " quoting: Technodrome link=board=24;threadid=9385;start=30#msg62952 date=1053878078]
Thhshs....So you cut your sleeping time again. ;D
" }-

I did never claim to have this ;D

[Technodrome]

;D ;D ;D



Technodrome

[root]

Thanks for the info guys. ;)

[Douglas]

I was wondering why dedicated AT programs such as TDS and Trojan Hunter are included in an all-around malware test. Is this standard in testing?

Regards,
Douglas

[VirusP]

-{ Quote: " quoting: root link=board=24;threadid=9385;start=30#msg62938 date=1053873070]
Thanks VirusP for posting this. Can we have a link to the information on this test, please?
I am curious as to why DrWeb scores as low as it does. Your test results are not out of line with other similar tests, so I do not doubt your tests, just wondering where DrWeb is weak so I can jump on the coders there and get them to fix the shortcomings.
" }-

This is the link to the new test.
http://www.virus.gr/english/fullxml/default.asp?id=59&mnu=59

The full results are here
http://www.virus.gr/fullxml/redirect.asp?id=159&type=dw

[VirusP]

-{ Quote: " quoting: Douglas link=board=24;threadid=9385;start=45#msg63012 date=1053897994]
I was wondering why dedicated AT programs such as TDS and Trojan Hunter are included in an all-around malware test. Is this standard in testing?

Regards,
Douglas
" }-

Well, to be honest, i haven't seen ANY AT tests at all..maybe i am mistaken of course. Still, i tested AT programs against all types of viruses because i wanted to get an extended view at the capabilities of each program. This, i confess, is not fair to the AT programs, since they do protect against trojans and backdoors mostly and not against all types of viruses;yet, i believe that every user should know how good each program does each job AND all "extra" protection it may offer as well.
So, no, testing AT against ALL types of viruses is NOT a fair challenge, still, it is an extra piece of information i thought everyone should know ;)

[Douglas]

Thank you for your response, VirusP.
And I join with the others in thanking you for posting your results.

Sincerely,
Douglas

[root]

Thanks for the links. :)

[Straight Shooter]

Thanks VirusP... At least it's nice to see McAfee is #4! :D

[solarpowered candle]

thanks Virus P :)