Antivirus.ru - March Results

Just looking at the results is more than enough to conclude that the test is worthless.

You say it's wrong to judge before we know how they conduct their testing? Off course not! They are the ones who run the test, so THEY have the responsibility to prove for US consumers that the test is properly done. As long as they dont do that, and just show us a table with the result from scanning a few pieces of malware (that any 12 year old could do with VirusTotal).... well, I'm sorry, but do you expect anyone to take such a test seriously?

For me to have just the slightest piece of trust in this test, I wanna know the type of malware, how the scanning was performed (on-demand, realtime), versions of both software and signatures, how the programs were configured (default config or additional command line parameters?) etc.

And of course, the number of malware is way to low. Probably because their so-called "laboratory" isn't really a, well, malware laboratory.

Compared to tests like av-comparatives, av-test.org and others - it seems like antivirus.ru is run be kids

 

just because they dont tell you that, doesnt mean they aint legit.

most tests you will see on the net, will be a percentage-only.

infact, alot of computer magazines pay great amounts for testing and will only post the percentage to us 'comsumers'

why do the public feel they are important enough to recieve such things?
its their business, their private business, to an AV company.... are they even bothered if you left them, very much doubt it, sales and figures arrive by the thousands, no 1 man has a voice.

it was the same when both frisk and drweb had some public disagreements with av-comparatives and their testing, people wanted proof and private information..... what makes the people of this forum, even think they are important enough to recieve such things.

a customer, thats it!

& i very much doubt any AV would give out such information to the joe-public, especially in open forum.

whether a test is trusted or not, its a test, thats all they ever are, so why do people get all involved.

ive never needed no test to show what an AV company and their product is, i just sit back and laugh at all the 'highly rated' ones, who have customers with infected machines.

 

Somebody in this thread sure likes to argue. Wonder who that is?

 

I hope they won't end up in a crash

 

Show me one AV vendor with no customers infected.

 

lucas, you know what i mean......

 

No, please enlighten us

You mean that since an AV-product has a high rating, no customers should ever be infected? Well, remember there's a difference between high and 100%. There will always be malware slipping past even the best AV. But still, using a product with good detection rate will lower the chances.

Another thing to remember is the number of users. I have done a bit of IT support in the past, and guess what AV was installed on most of the infected PCs? It was Norton/Symantec. Does it mean it's inferior to other AVs? Well, it may not necessarily be the #1 AV, but the problem is that its the most popular product worldwide, so it's not so strange that more Norton-users in Norway get infected than e.g. Dr.Web users. I don't even think I have encountered a computer with Dr.Web yet - infected or not

I have absolutely nothing against Dr. Web. I have used it myself, although mainly the free Dr.Web CureIT. I like the fact that is uses little resources, and as an oldschool computer user, I like the oldschool interface of Dr.Web. It sure beats the buggy flashy animated HTML-based GUI of some other products. But I am not fanatic about any of these AV-scanner, and I'm therefor a bit amazed by the persistance of some Dr.Web users.

 

I'm not sure if I know what you mean

 

Now that conclusion wouldn't have been possible if Rayleigh's law of scattering had never been released to the public. Before the law came about everyone simply assumed it with no proof. One can see that if equal proportions of light are mixed in a closed environment of all the visible spectra then the exact same blue colour of light can be seen

Similarly, without details, one must assume this particular test is suspect at best, and in particular there is little information, if any at all, about the methodology as well.

 

can someone tell me why nod32 did so poorly in this test?

 

Yep.....Antivirus.ru. And when they do, please enlighten the rest of us


Cheers

 

Clearly you haven't read this thread...