Any Kaspersky <-> Anti-Trojan comparison?

Hi,

Is there any statistics/tests of non-virus malwares covered in Kaspersky AV compared to specialized Anti-Trojans such as BoClean, TDS, ewido... ? Please provide links if you known of any.

thanks,
-hojtsy-

 

VirusP's tests compare the detection rates of a wide variety of AV and AT programs against a wide variety of threats including trojans, viruses and "malware" including adware, exploits etc.

Look for the Detailed Test Results at the bottom of the page.

 

Don't forgot the Media Discovers Spyware thread. Once you discount BOClean, Kaspersky does very well there compared to the other AT scanners.

 

Thanks.

The trojan set of VirusP seems somewhat strange given that TDS only detects 50%, and it is beaten by 26 different anti-viruses. Sorry but don't seem realistic.

The same comment applies to the Media Discovers Spyware thread. If a test shows Kaskpersky with 42%, I simply ignore the whole test. It is sad to see the authors of BoClean are no exception and they employ the old trick of Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt. But let's not go offtopic.

I am still searching for other tests.
-hojtsy-

 

Some more (older) tests here and here.

Compared to viruses, there are very few trojan testing sites and the actual test-bed samples will always be controversial.

KAV-engined AV's, McAfee and Dr Web may be as good as the dedicated AT's for trojan detection but may not be as good in cleaning the infections.

 

naahhh, we don't want to talk about that again

 

Does anyone know if Kaspersky Personal Security Suite has a firewall also and is it as good as ZA?

 

KAV PSS contains the personal firewall, Kaspersky Anti-Hacker.

I was not impressed by KAH v 1.0, but later versions have improved since then.

However, as I have not used ZA for years I cannot comment upon the relative merits of the two.

 

i can't believe that ewido and a2 is a antitrojan meanning they are mainly for trojans and they have like 26% and 35% or something?

 

May be they have 50% of DOS virus? 20% of Adware and malware?
AT is a AT. Not Anti everything.

 

see here for an explanation

 

/www.emsisoft.com/en/software/scanner/

 

Thanks for the reply and link Blackcat.

 

yup, including AT's in that test was as silly as it was misleading.

I've been curious if there has been any comparison between KAV and the top AT programs for trojan detection too. Haven't found a site that does it yet.

 

I'm interested in a similar test myself.

However, based on the threads I've read here and elsewhere, the whole AT testing seems to be such a hot issue that nobody really wants to touch it, not to mention testin being difficult to such a degree that I'm not sure there are many people able to pull it off properly.

Then again, I'd be content with just somebody running on demand-scanners / resident scanners against a LARGE enough a pool of stuff available from the web / p2p. Those are one of the biggest real-life distribution channels for these nasties anyway, right?

Even that would be better (imho) than absolutely no info on the issue and just wild guesses and insinuations between the AT makers in various forums

I mean, we the buying consumers need at least a semi-trusted independent 3rd party to perform these tests, so we know what to buy.

Just relying on propaganda from the software manufacturers just doesn't cut it for me anymore. Sure they may be all honest, 100% brutally critical of their own software failings (all software has failings), but it is impossible for us to know that.

Some sort of proof would be nice

 

I ran Ewido with Ewido guard running for the initial 14 day trial along with KAV 5. On a number of occasions during that time I went to a site where I know I will come across trojan downloaders, droppers and things. KAV always got them - never had an Ewido Guard alert.

I'm not saying that Ewido wouldn't have caught it if I had of disabled KAV - I just didn't try this as my purpose was to test KAV while I had Ewido there 'holding the ladder'. Subsequent on demand scans Ewido only found things like tracking cookies and stuff, nothing serious was missed by KAV.

Not very scientific I know, but it made me feel comfortable and fairly safe using just KAV 5, so now I only use a free on demand AT (in my case Ewido) once in a while, or after a high risk surfing session.

 

I do not want to test AT programs. Anyway I think that atm Ewido is the AT that detects more than most other AT's. I do not want to compare AT vs. AV, because I think that based on the test-sets etc. some AV (like e.g. KAV) detects more than AT programs.

 

@q1aqza: for compatibility reasons the ewido guard currently scans AFTER KAV so everything KAV detects, can't be detected by ewido anymore

 

Thanks Fish, I did realise that KAV was probably operating at a lower level and has first shot at catching things, but the point I was trying to make in my post was that in my personal experience during the two weeks trial of Ewido guard, nothing got past KAV that needed Ewido Guard to kick-in and do it's stuff. I hope my post wasn't implying Ewido was inferior as I really like the program, I was just highlighting my own confidence in KAV's AT capabilities.

I haven't discounted getting a real-time AT anyway as I agree with the layered defence approach even though I'm confident it wouldn't have much to do alongside KAV