AV-Comparatives February 2007

as ewido does not only detect backdoors and trojans but also other stuff, it affects more or less all categories, but mainly the non-replicating stuff.
As all vendors submit their best paid product to the test, it is fair to test the Antimalware version, as if someone pays for AVG, I would recommend him to buy AVG Anti-Malware and not another version for more money and less protection.

 

For some reason I don't think the Ewido engine caused AVG's level to rise to "Advanced" because of Backdoor and Trojan detection.

Looking at the report of August 2006, I can see that AVG Pro got 96.18% for backdoor detection and 92.67% for trojan detection, both of which are in fact quite good scores already. Looking at those scores, I was wondering whether Grisoft needed to purchase Ewido at all.

Now where AVG has always lacked is:

- Script Malware
- OtherOS malware (not their priority I think)
- The "other malware" section

Now, script malware is a section where Ewido could offer very little help. OtherOS malware does not really count in the levels an AV gets for this year I think, so the only place where Ewido could possibly have helped in a significant way is the "Other Malware" section. I guess the difference must be very significant (I'm talking 30% gains here) and this was probably the thing that allowed AVG to get an "Advanced" rating.

 

Didn't see your post while making mine, sorry.

I agree with your views, but I suppose by "non-replicating stuff" you mean Trojans, BackDoors, other malware and OtherOS malware?

 

mainly Trojans, BackDoors, other malware

 

They don't appear to have a rating in the Feb. '07 overview.

 

that's probably because they are below standard

 

The fact that NOD32 didn't achieve Advanced+ in these tests doesn't make it "not the best" . When the results become available , please have a look also at the false positive and the scanning speed. NOD32 is among the first when it comes to scan speed and less false positives . Don't want to say anything bad but although Kaspersky got Avd+ , I would not use it on my computer because Kaspersky's engine scans slow and this slows down all my computers . I wouldn't also use Avira free because they definitely have problems with update servers. As IBK has said , in order to get antivirus software you should also have a look at other things , not only the detection rate . Moreover , IBK said here at Wilders that NOD32 didn't get Avd+ for a little which means it still has very high detection rate .

Have a look at Trust Port , it uses 4 engines . Although it detected lots of malware , I can guarantee you that it is times slower than most products when all the engines are in use .

I do agree that the World of AV changes really fast.
Years ago one product was the best , now it is even not in the awarded products.

 

scan speed doesnt affect the ratings, as f-secure would be standard. lol

 

Of course

I was talking about the overall consideration . You cannot consider a products good or bad because of its detection rate only

 

i take a different look,

id prefer a slightly above average on everything, than a few excellent parts and a few bad parts.

 

Everyone has different needs for a AV product... AVC's tests show the detection rates... other users may rather have speed, usability, support, features, low memory usage etc... thats why its necessary for users NOT to solely rely on the test results to determine what AV to use, but to use the results with helping you make a selection and look overall at what they prefer and weigh them accordingly when choosing an AV product.

 

interesting results I may say... virus writers release many new viruses and some AV companies can't keep in the line with them... for some it seems in this fight of AVs versus virus writers the last one got a point. Of course there is basically not such a big difference between A and A+ and I trully hope those vendors will add detection for those missed samples.

Anyway, the detailed report will be more concludent.
I am a little bit confused about MS... I thought they will get at least a Standard but... it seems not.

 

From my post, no. I was joking. The results aren't even final right?

 

they are final.

 

Andreas, you were not joking when you wrote this

 

sounds about right to me ... (avg anti-malware that is)

 

Andreas,

Will these vendors be sent the "missed" samples in the test?

 

not from me. like stated e.g. in the conditions.

 

I would like to know the number of missed samples by all AVs.

 

if you look at the results of kaspersky and compare it to trust port you dont get much more detection rate than kaspersky but trust port uses multiple engines and slows down the pc alot more
lodore

 

The endless mistery: why KAV runs poorly on some pcs. I guess it's a problem related to certain hardware environment.

It never did bad on my 4 years old machine...and I have only 512mb of ram

 

i think IBK should post them a few days early

as its sunday... and it sometimes gets boring on this day, maybe this will at least add some discussion to the forum, as im sure there will be surprises in the results.

lol, what do you think?

 

May be but generally the KAV engine is slower than most other . See the scan speed . Since AV-Comparatives scan for malware once , they don't use I-Checker/I-Swift . Anyway , it is my personal choice not to use it

 

I concur here. My first full scan took about 1h45m for scanning around 350,000 files and it was done on ALL the files in my pc. However, it is no problem for me as subsequents scans will be done more quickly by using the above mentioned technologies.

 

Kaspersky has been the fastest on my computer. Are you sure your settings are right?
Maybe have a look at http://forum.kaspersky.com

KIS 6 made my computer very fast and secure