Anti-Virus Software Reviews 2006

What do you all think of these reviews?
Link removed - Rogue site - Ron

 

Oh oh,

I clicked and looked at that site in the few minutes before you caught and removed it. Any infection now to watch for?

It was a pretty poor looking report, best price they could find for EZ-trust was $39.95 a year.

No loss to never see it.

 

Why was the link removed?

 

I suggest www.av-comparatives.org for av tests...

 

Comparative results will be available for all officially at those dates:
1st March and 1st September: comparative results of on-demand detection of virus/malware
1stJune and 1st December: retrospective/proactive test results..."


and thank you Ron,

 

Would welcome opinions and comments on this fairly recent report:

http://nepenthes.mwcollect.org/stats:scannertest

(No prices mentioned.)

 

I think you should post this in a new thread to get more attention drawn to it. I like to see more people give their thoughts.

 

That site doesn't inspire any confidence in me.
AV Comparatives, as mentioned already, is the one to watch.

 

Kaspersky rates slightly below average?
ClamAV beats NOD32?
I'm slightly suspicious as to their methodology.
Don't get me wrong, I have the Clam as a backup AV, but I don't think I'll be replacing my NOD32 with it anytime soon.
I don't doubt other posts will reflect similar opinions.

 

Ron,

Thank you for posting that list.

Patriots, Joliet Jake, Bob D. thank you-all for the comments.

and now I took the suggestion to start a new thread "amazing or shocking..."
_________________________________________________________________

And Ron, sorry to create such a mess.. thanks for the link to fix

 

See the discussion in this thread (post #17 onwards):

https://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?t=124398

Firstly, I don't think that was intended in any way to be a "review" of AV products!

You need to understand that nepenthes, by design, collects only a very limited subset of sample types (almost exclusively net-worms and backdoors). Whilst these threats pose a very real threat to unprotected users, they can be equally well dealt with by simply running a fully patched Windows system and using a firewall.

Also, some AVs may run a nepenthes collection server themselves and thus may add samples far quicker than others. What we need to know is if the stats are based on scans performed at the time of colection (before may AVs have had a chance to add them), or if tests were performed after some time later (ie, they rescanned their whole library for the test).

Ned

 

Also I didn't find a word about the methodology used on their website. Did they test all files for functionality? Did they include installers by chance as well? (malicious files are usually detected on extraction) Did they actually have all options enabled in the on-demand scanner before they ran a scan?

 

Lots of very good information in these comments and replies, thank you all.

This site shows sixteen "PASS" with 100% and One "FAIL".
http://www.virusbtn.com/vb100/archive/2006/04
________________________________________________________________

Nepenthes site has Some additional information that can be found here:

http://nepenthes.mwcollect.org/documentation:readme

All they say on the stats:scan page is:

"All scanners are updated to their most recent virus definition files. For security reasons we test those files on *nix plattforms.
Results ...................................................................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................................................................
Our archive contains unique malware samples. Remember - those files are real virii found in the wild RIGHT NOW! ... stats/scannertest.txt · Last modified: 2006/02/17 14:01"