VB100 Feb 2005 Results are out.....

[Firecat]

Hello guys!

Check this link for the results of VB100 Feb 2005 (Windows NT).....

http://www.virusbtn.com/vb100/archives/tests.xml?200502

The results are very interesting:-

ArcaVir,F-Secure, F-Prot, McAfee and MicroWorld (eScan) have failed.....

I don't know why this should be as all of these are very good AntiVirus scanners.

Any idea guys?

Regards,
Firecat

[JimIT]

Originally Posted by Firecat

Hello guys!

Check this link for the results of VB100 Feb 2005 (Windows NT).....The results are very interesting:-

ArcaVir,F-Secure, F-Prot, McAfee and MicroWorld (eScan) have failed.....

I don't know why...Any idea guys?

Regards,
Firecat

Just guessing, but probably due to a fp or two.

[Unity]

woaa F-Secure and Mcafee ... wish i could read the details tho.

[Firecat]

You and me, unity. You and me.

[Unity]

on the other hand , all the free AV have earned a VB100 award

[Firecat]

The last time eScan failed, it was due to a problem with the update server. The same could be happening now.F-Secure never had many problems with false positives, especially now when they use the upcoming AVP/KAV 6.0 engine...McAfee? possible, as I heard that some people were calling the service center here to report a few viruses which were caught by enterprise versions but not the home versions....

But F-Prot has remained quite good. I wonder what's wrong? and MKS-Vir (now ArcaVir I think) has also performed very well here.. Or all users of these products are at risk and should change?

Regards,
Firecat

[Firecat]

Originally Posted by Unity

on the other hand , all the free AV have earned a VB100 award

Ditto. And so has Quickheal, which has the worst detection I've ever seen in an AV thats so aggressively marketed in our country... On posters, backs of cars and buses, magazines, stores...

[ronjor]

Or all users of these products are at risk and should change

No. It's just one test. There are others.

A VB 100% award means that a product has passed our tests, no more and no less. The failure to attain a VB 100% award is not a declaration that a product cannot provide adequate protection in the real world if administered by a professional. We would urge any potential customer, when looking at the VB 100% record of any software, not simply to consider passes and fails, but to read the small print in the reviews.

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

[Firecat]

Well I see. Thanks. What are your views on why these products failed, Ron?

[ronjor]

Not clear to me Firecat. You can look at past reviews and see why they failed.
Unless you subscribe to Virus Bulletin, there is no way to know.

http://www.virusbtn.com/vb100/archives/products.xml

[Honyak]

VB %100 has never been a deciding factor in my choice of AV's. To me this test simply confirms that no AV is %100 at Identifying virii %100 of the time. Look at Kaspersky, 25 pass and 13 fail. This test does perform a service to the AV developers, but I have never used it to make my decision on what AV to use.
I have read that sometimes VB100 does not set the scanners up correctly or some other technical problems occur. I do not know if this is true or not.
Just because it fails a few times does not mean you should dump your AV.

[Ianb]

The Avast FAIL last year was all because they refused to CONFIGURE the scanner and used it "Out Of The Box".

I don't care about these tests they are rubbish. To see what's in the REAL WILD and what catches it I'd rather monitor Jotti (shame they don't have McAfee and Norton though - or use an XP server as opposed to a unix one).

[Paul Wilders]

Originally Posted by Ianb

The Avast FAIL last year was all because they refused to CONFIGURE the scanner and used it "Out Of The Box".

All are tested that way

...To see what's in the REAL WILD and what catches it I'd rather monitor Jotti (shame they don't have McAfee and Norton though

...because they either refused to participate or have withdrawn their product.
Jordi Bosveld FYI removed overall stats as for product results; thus there's no way to get an overall view by looking at Jotti's site at random times - which only focusses on non-viral malware.

- or use an XP server as opposed to a unix one).

What's wrong with that? engines and signature updates are one and the same.

regards,

paul

[dan_maran]

I am taking this set from VB100 with a grain of salt, as Microsoft has stopped supporting NT. I know that the virus signatures should work anyway but as I don't use NT at all anymore, total migration to 2000, this one test doesn't help much.

[profhsg]

If you want more information on which product failed and why, the NOD32 home site, http://www.nod32.com, has a link to a pdf version of the full VB magazine article on the NT test. It's the "here" button in the little blurb bragging about NOD32's latest pass on the VB test.

[Unity]

Thx for the link

Too bad that they don't list false positive. Because it would probably explain
why some of the well known AV didn't have the VB100 in the lastest test.

You can also see really clearly , the AV that are focusing on the ITW samples

[Acadia]

I'm puzzled by the NOD website. They claim that they have had a perfect 100% score for the past seven years, yet when I go to Virus Bulletin, NOD has had three fails within that time.

Acadia

[profhsg]

Originally Posted by Acadia

I'm puzzled by the NOD website. They claim that they have had a perfect 100% score for the past seven years, yet when I go to Virus Bulletin, NOD has had three fails within that time.

Acadia

I think that their exact claim is that they haven't missed an ITW virus in a VB test in the last seven years. The three fails may have been because of false positives. If this is correct, then their claim is accurate in that they haven't missed an ITW virus on a VB test.

[mikel108]

Virus Bulletin will help to form an opinion about a product. However it is only a piece to the puzzle. Would you rather have the odd false positive that you have to scan with Jotti, or would you rather have a AV that misses viruses?? Also, could you imagine having a product that finds a 100% of all malware, but is unstable and constantly crashes.

http://www.nod32.com/news/vbreprints.pdf

VB100 Feb 2005 Result Overview !!

Why did they test with NOD version 1.529?

[RejZoR]

That number is a virud definition build,not a program version number.

[Firecat]

The tests in the reprints show NOD's 2003-04 performance Bet I can blame eScan's failure on the scan restrictions MicroWorld placed (not scanning CAB, JAR and other file types..plus having size restriction on all archives...) luckily I can remove those...

[RejZoR]

They don't test free version but full featured commercial one...

[Firecat]

Um...Yes.

RejZor,

You might know I use the commercial version of eScan, and being very close to MicroWorld (almost their 'official' representative for this forum, almost because I am not an employee, but they've told me to keep watch here in these forums), I know the latest version of eScan commercial very well.It has these restrictions thingy (v2.6.501.8 onwards). I told them not to put it and they told me that I can remove the restrictions if I want (and that's just what I did). I think thats what cost them the VB100 this time.

Regards,
Firecat