AV-Test.org march test results

Hi,

Andreas Marx (AV-Test.org) was kind enough to send me his newest security suite test results. As usual you will find the content of the excel file in my blog: http://blog.chip.de/0-security-blog/maerz-2008er-security-suiten-im-vergleich-20080310/ It is in german but shouldnt be to hard to read.

For your reading pleasure his original mail: ~Removed. No private email to be posted without permission from sender. Ron~

Greetings
Valentin

 

Translated version linky

 

cheers Valentin,

but i dont even have the energy to keep ranting on about these huge-tests.

some key points:

- Avira has the same level of heuristics as Drweb, and Panda has a better heuristic than both.

- Panda also has better rootkit detection that drweb and Avira.

- etrust, mcafee, norton and microsoft have a BETTER cleanup than Drweb, and apparently products like Avira, F-secure, Nod32 have the same level of cleanup in comparision to drweb.

sure, people can label this as being biased, but truly... even without admitting it, the people of wilders know better, and these results just suck donkey <censored!>

--
---
----
-----

im almost laughing at these so-called professionals now, they shouldnt give up their day job if this is what they truly bring to the table.

you are Fired! - would be the words i would hear, if i performed so poorly in my own job

 

The proactive detection rates include both heuristics and runtime behaviour analysis (Deep Guard, TruPrevent, etc)

 

label it how you like lucas, they dont add up.

truprevent's behaviour technology is at the lower end, and so are Panda's heuristics.
also, other results are laughable and just dont add up.

we better all switch to avast free and trend micro.

because, thats obvious, right?

 

Inetresting, thanks for the link.

The behavior analysis was only for 20 samples, still very nice to see they tested that though! I wish there was a table just for those.

Translation:

 

ty

pinch of salt.

 

Not sure what you mean here. Panda's heuristics detect a lot of packed samples (so called paranoid heuristics) and Truprevent is a "OK" behaviour blocker. A high score in the behaviour-based tests might have boosted Panda's overall score, because the heuristic test uses a much larger sample bed.

Well, this test brings good news to users of those products.

 

Yup, the "score" system hides the raw numbers (except in the on-demand test)

 

sure, it brings good news and also false news.

im not saying Panda and Trend are poor products, but not even close to the so-called findings of Marx.

anyone can state X product is good or bad.

these results have even more material to challenge compared to IBKs results, and i very much doubt that it wont be long before they are challenged.

for the prices Marx charges, i would just pull out of this piece of crap, because they are just plain rubbish, none of the results add up, at all...... and they certainly dont add up in comparison to IBK's test.

these tests are flawed, look at the results for AV's that you have even tried yourself, you DONT need a heavy test and a degree to say what should be scoring what.

i dont know what is the most stupid, these results or the companys that pay the high price for them? (couldnt that money be used on improving the product instead? or if your giving it away as you seem to be doing, why not back to customers?)

 

thank you

 

Something in there I find very intriguing.

AVK G-Data and TrustPort seem to have strike out on rootkits. So I take it that while they licence the AV engines, the deal doesn't include the rootkit scanners?

 

avira antivir premium doing excellent
very good antivir antivirus

 

Then maybe you should wait till the next VirusP test releases, which should be sometime in May or June....

 

No, its just that detection of active rootkits is highly dependent on the strength of the resident drivers of the application as well and not just the AV engine it uses

 

lol

all these tests and none match, also how products change dramatically every 3 months or so. (its just soooo false)

 

Not quite true. These tests have statistical accuracy, low amounts of garbage files and a concise methodology. If you don't agree with flat file scanning or that the sample bed doesn't represent the scope of actively spreading malware, that's an entirely different thing.
For example, my individual experiences (submiting of samples to VT, cleaning infected machines, keeping an eye on underground forums, etc) closely match most of the postulates.

 

They license the unpacking/emulating/file parsing engines, the databases and some other bits, but they build their own disk/registry access technology.

 

Sounds pretty much like what you're doing to me.

Do you have any evidence or statistics to back up your hot air?

 

so, you believe these results?

 

That's an entirely different matter from what appears to be sheer hypocrisy on your part.

 

no its not, you either trust and believe the results, or dont.

its not an hard decision.

 

It's not a hard decision. But accepting your word for it would be little different from accepting Andreas Marx's word for it. Obviously you go to great lengths to lambast the latter option, but have little problem with the former.

I mean, come on. What gives? "I'm right, you're wrong, nee na na naah?"

 

actually i make my own opinion up, its mine and i post it, you dont have to believe my opinion, and you can slate it, which you also take great lengths to always do , but i will post it.


it shouldnt be a matter of believing me or marx, judge yourself.

dont you have an opinion, are you really so guillible to believe everything thats pasted infront of your eyes?

you probably believe the americans landed on the moon in 69?

lol

 

Thanks, that make sense.