Antivirus.ru - March Results

Discussion in 'other anti-virus software' started by C.S.J, Apr 1, 2008.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. solcroft

    solcroft Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2006
    Posts:
    1,639
    19 viruses in a month; what a load of bull. I can easily find more than that in half a day, tops, and I'm just an amateur hobbyist who does this for fun while they're supposed to be a test organization with credible ability to build their own test set. But I guess it all fits nicely; 19 was all they were left with after their *ahem* stringent and meticulous *coughdoctoredcoughcough* selection processes, producing the very outstanding test results you see here.
     
  2. egghead

    egghead Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2005
    Posts:
    443
    Location:
    The Netherlands
    and your prove is.........?
     
  3. solcroft

    solcroft Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2006
    Posts:
    1,639
    You've never used them before, have you?

    But put it simply, have you seen any other tests where DrWeb comes close?
     
  4. egghead

    egghead Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2005
    Posts:
    443
    Location:
    The Netherlands
    you are "answering" my question with questions.

    Again, what is your proof ?

    From the 8 you have mentioned I have trialed 5. Kaspersky i'm still using (have a license).

    http://www.shadowserver.org/wiki/pmwiki.php?n=Stats.VirusYearlyStats

    NB these are yearly stats
     
  5. Bunkhouse Buck

    Bunkhouse Buck Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2007
    Posts:
    1,286
    Location:
    Las Vegas
    You are correct. This is the only test I have seen where Dr. Web is first or second. Much of the time, Dr. Web produces mediocre results at best.
     
  6. solcroft

    solcroft Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2006
    Posts:
    1,639
    How does one prove that the sky is blue?

    It's a simple fact, and it's there for you to see. You can either take the trouble to lift your head and see for yourself that the sky is indeed blue, or you can shut your eyes and adamantly insist for evidence that the sky is blue. It's really up to you.
     
  7. C.S.J

    C.S.J Massive Poster

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2006
    Posts:
    5,029
    Location:
    this forum is biased!
    You seem to forget AM's result, or maybe people are sugesting they are biased to because they are Russian too.

    The only test at AM that drweb has not scored well in was the self protection
    test of v4.33
     
  8. solcroft

    solcroft Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2006
    Posts:
    1,639
    And did you really learn anything about its detection rates, or was it just the typical look-and-see trial?

    F-PROT 6 above Avira. Vexira (rebranded VirusBuster) above BitDefender and Kaspersky.

    Though I guess you have no problems believing those either. :rolleyes:
     
  9. egghead

    egghead Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2005
    Posts:
    443
    Location:
    The Netherlands
    o.k. no proof but personal opinion

    Nothing at all.:eek: I have learned which AV protects "my worId". I have chosen KAV and I'm using this now for 5 years in a row. Recently I have bought Dr.Web and I'm very satisfied with its protection.

    I believe 1 test only and that is the Egghead test. I download riskie stuff and visit dark places of the web and see what the AV does. Doctor Web, like KAV, protects extremely well. When an AV protects me when practising risky behavior it certainly protects me in my "normal" daily computer life.
     
    Last edited: Apr 3, 2008
  10. Antarctica

    Antarctica Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2003
    Posts:
    2,177
    Location:
    Canada
    That's exactly how we should choose a AV, the one that will protect your "own" PC and not the one that will perform "best" on comparative.
     
  11. pugmug

    pugmug Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2006
    Posts:
    413
    Is this test real or a joke?I have my take on it,how about you?
     
  12. Firecat

    Firecat Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2005
    Posts:
    8,251
    Location:
    The land of no identity :D
    Not biased per se, but maybe the setting and location plays a role in how Dr.Web plays in that test as local AVs are often better for local tests (since samples are recovered from infected PCs anyway). It may be true that malware does not have a passport, but Russian PCs will more likely go through more Russian sites and hence encounter a greater variety of Russian malware (in theory) that other companies may not detect or may not bother because those sites may not be too common for their intended user base.

    Not really surprising as VirusBuster does a lot of packer detection, more than both KAV and BD, thus leading to "better" 0-day protection in a few cases. Many times I have scanned files on VT to see VirusBuster being amongst the first AVs to detect it based solely on the packer, i.e. it seems to be detecting the packer and not the malware. :)

    But I do agree that something does not seem right about this particular test. The test set of just 19 samples discounts any credibility of the results IMO, and any results are statistically quite insignificant really.
     
  13. solcroft

    solcroft Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2006
    Posts:
    1,639
    It IS surprising from what I've seen. VirusBuster doesn't do "pure" packer detection - for some reason it only seems to flag packers if some other (unknown to me) criteria are met as well.
     
  14. solcroft

    solcroft Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2006
    Posts:
    1,639
    And that is why you have to ask for evidence for even things like how far DrWeb is behind WebWasher.

    Also, I found it strange when certain parties expressed worry that AV-C may try to "influence" AM's results. I wondered what did that have to do with anything, but after some comments brought to my attention the artificially inflated ranking of a certain AV in AM's results, I think I now know why.
     
  15. larryb52

    larryb52 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2006
    Posts:
    1,131
    there,s no logic here so I choose Norton because of PCMags' tests & they said it was best...that's good enough for me ;)
     
  16. JasSolo

    JasSolo Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 9, 2007
    Posts:
    414
    Location:
    Denmark
    :thumb: Good one, Larry. I like NIS & NAV aswell.


    Cheers
     
  17. solcroft

    solcroft Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2006
    Posts:
    1,639
    larry,

    Just because some so-called tests are better off as comedy material instead, doesn't mean all of them should be tarred with the same brush.
     
  18. bellgamin

    bellgamin Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2002
    Posts:
    8,102
    Location:
    Hawaii
    From the U.S. Department of Useless Information (USDUI)...
    What you see when you look up is the atmosphere -- air -- which is colorless. On a clear cloudless day, the sky appears to be blue because molecules in the air scatter blue light from the sun more than they scatter red light.

    In any event, the issue as to the rank of DrWeb's current protective status remains to be seen. Recently, DRW has been vigorously adding signatures, and has also tweaked its real-time monitor & integral engine.

    Despite DRW's manifest disdain of its poor results at AV-C & other test sites, I think the *sleeping giant* has finally awakened. In udder voids, DRW is back in the race. Wait'll next AV-test.org's tests.
     
  19. larryb52

    larryb52 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2006
    Posts:
    1,131

    no actually I do put some stock in PCMag, just as much as some others. I really use Nortons because I have had good success with it (it has saved me a couple times) & the one test I do put some stock in is AV-Comp. But bottom line any software I use i do so based on many 'other' factors & not just tests and I would add that all tests are not all equal...
     
  20. lucas1985

    lucas1985 Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2006
    Posts:
    4,047
    Location:
    France, May 1968
    - FileAdvisor (Bit9) is a whitelisting solution, with no malware scanning engine at all.
    - The strengh of Prevx resides in its runtime behaviour analysis and herd intelligence, not in its signature/heuristic/sandbox scanning.
    - Sunbelt VIPRE is a beta application.

    Do they use Virustotal or another online multi-engine scanning?
     
  21. C.S.J

    C.S.J Massive Poster

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2006
    Posts:
    5,029
    Location:
    this forum is biased!
    no idea, I only posted it :)

    Don't shoot the messenger.
     
  22. lucas1985

    lucas1985 Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2006
    Posts:
    4,047
    Location:
    France, May 1968
    Be sure that there isn't any animosity against you.
    But these tests are so flawed that they're worthless.
     
  23. Fly

    Fly Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2007
    Posts:
    2,201
    Why not ? You delivered the message ! :D
     
  24. C.S.J

    C.S.J Massive Poster

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2006
    Posts:
    5,029
    Location:
    this forum is biased!
    you shouldnt judge it before you know how they do things.
     
  25. lucas1985

    lucas1985 Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2006
    Posts:
    4,047
    Location:
    France, May 1968
    - Do they use Virustotal or similar things?
    - Why did they test FileAdvisor?
    - 19 random samples = statistically insignificant results.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.