checkvir certification

[christophs]

3 gets ADVANCED
KAV not...

http://www.checkvir.com/index.php?CN=30.3.35&CIE=0
http://www.checkvir.com/index.php?CN=30.3.34&CIE=0
Tested for XP Pro and XP Home

[waters]

Trend,Norton and Etrust allways get advanced.
I am supprised none of the others occasionally get advanced.

[Firecat]

Well, I dont trust Checkvir, because once MicroWorld's eScan (KAV engine) got ADVANCED certification but KAV did not.

[Don Pelotas]

Originally Posted by Firecat

Well, I dont trust Checkvir, because once MicroWorld's eScan (KAV engine) got ADVANCED certification but KAV did not.

I have to agree with you, Kaushik. It's hard to believe a test that rates, Etrust, Norton and Trend-Micro as "Advanced" and F-Secure, Kaspersky, McAfee and Nod as "Standard".

[Firecat]

Originally Posted by Don Pelotas

I have to agree with you, Kaushik. It's hard to believe a test that rates, Etrust, Norton and Trend-Micro as "Advanced" and F-Secure, Kaspersky, McAfee and Nod as "Standard".

Yup. I used to have a small collection of VBS and Macro viruses and a few Trojans, and PCC and Norton would only manage to clean the Macro ones. PCC wouldn't even detect all the Trojans.

Kaspersky disinfected all the viruses and deleted all the Trojans.

[christophs]

But it is not the first time, that KAV didnt get the ADVANCED-level.
Norton got it.

[Firecat]

Thats what I'm saying. In every other test out there (as well as real-world), KAV has proven itself to be a better disinfector and a better malware detector than Norton, Trend or eTrust. That is why I feel Checkvir is "rigged" to an extent.

How can MicroWorld's eScan based on KAV engine do better than KAV itself? Answer: The test is rigged.

Hope that explains a bit.

[Sputnik]

I doubt the comments here, because we talk not about detection here... CheckVir mainly tests the cleaning capabilities of AV's... I don't see why this test is rigged, because (once again) cleaning and detection are a whole different thing!!!

[Ianb]

For me personally I don't care about cleaning - detection is far more important.

[Sputnik]

Originally Posted by Ianb

For me personally I don't care about cleaning - detection is far more important.

Kinda stupid I think (sorry)...
So if your important word file is infected you just want to delete it and not clean it so there's not much (no) work gone? I'm sorry but cleaning and detection go hand in hand...

[Ianb]

Originally Posted by StyleWarz

Kinda stupid I think (sorry)

Not if you make regular backups and have a decent imaging solution (like Drive Image or Ghost).

I did say personally

BTW, I wasn't attacking your post just pointing out that the test has no credibility for what I need.

[Sputnik]

Originally Posted by Ianb

Not if you make regular backups and have a decent imaging solution (like Drive Image or Ghost).

I did say personally

BTW, I wasn't attacking your post just pointing out that the test has no credibility for what I need.

That's no problem, I didn't feel to be attacked in any way... It's just that backups can't safe you from everything, especially not by "normal" home users. A good antivirus solution had both good detection and good cleaning.