AV-Comparatives

On demand comparative august 2006
Is this a good ranking

 

NOD32 got an "Advanced+" rating - it's the highest awarded by AV-Comparatives. You should read their testing methodology and decide if it makes sense to me - personally, I don't go much on that kind of crippling of an AV system, but that's *MY* opinion.

hth

Greg

 

lol - the biggest "failing" - ie, the lowest score on the Eset product is for the category "OtherOS viruses/malware" - I'm assuming that's detecting malware and viruses from other operating systems, ie, those that can't infect the host operating system - I wonder what the scores would be if you took that column out, because quite brutally, I don't care about a virus/malware on MY system that has no chance of infecting MY SYSTEM... but again, that's me...

 

Comparing with their last on-demand test (February), NOD32 have, in the following areas:

DOS viruses/malware: scored higher (less than half a %)
Windows viruses: scored lower (less than 1%)
Macro viruses: scored higher (less than half a %)
Script viruses/malware: scored higher (~0.5%)
Worms: scored higher (less than half a %)
Backdoors: scored higher (less than half a %)
Trojans: scored higher (little more than 1 and a half %)
other malware: scored higher (little more than 11%)
OtherOS viruses malware: scored higher (little more than 3%)

Overall, NOD32 seems to be doing better in this test than in previous on-demand test. Their biggest improvements, as far as I can see, is in the "other malware" & "OtherOS viruses malware" categories.

Also, according to this test, NOD32 is "excellent" in detection of dialers, so no real "weak" spots for this good program (when it comes to detection).

In other words, good work ESET!

 

I've just seen the test results and NOD32 is the third, taking into consideration only stand-alone AV products, not multi-engine products.

They performed very well, but I think they should take a look to polymorphic viruses: Zelly.A and Insane.A were not fully detected.

Otherwise keep the good work.

 

Unfortunately, the results don't tell anything about false positives. At least one of the first AVs produces a lot of them, we could also flag anything suspicious that is packed with strange packers at cost of producing many FPs, but that's certainly not the way to go.

 

well, that means the samples were corrupted and IBK should remove them.

 

that's not what marcos means. about the false positives: in some months we will see how many false positives it produces and what the next steps are.

 

well, misunderstanding perhaps.
He was talking generally not about my post, now I see.

 

From when is bashing of other AV's allowed here?

Thanks.

 

Let him bash, it only shows that they have a serious problem.

 

mmm...what I want from ESET is to add those missed samples in the next few weeks. Hope I don't require something too heavy and I also hope you're not going to wait till the next comparative test to add them in "huge" updates.

 

It seems that Marcos said something wrong...

If the false positive really counts on these tests, AntiVir would not had the ADVANCED Certification level on the Retrospective/ProActive Test of May 2006...

 

I do believe that Stefan Kurtzhals was agreeing with Marcos.

But nobody mentioned the product they were speaking of.

Cheers

 

No, I think Stefan works for Avira.

See bottom of this thread:
https://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?t=145483

 

Come on Marcos, stay fair

 

Well there you go - and I still though he was speaking of another one.

Cheers

 

in some months we will see how many false positives the av's produce and what the next steps are, so please lets wait without speculating (as maybe another surprise could arise).

 

Do you like that an AV produce a lot of false positives?

You can delete good and essential files!!!

 

What would be really nice was if you penalty the AV's depending on their false positives number...

On the last Retrospective/ProActive Test I didn't see that...

 

there was a penality, just re-read the report

additionally, at the end of this year (this is something new) there will be a short summary about the "winner(s)" of the year.

 

Of course, if you're a moron that's just clicking Next or Ok buttons without reading...

 

Look to IBK's comment, 2 posts below

 

You are right, what I wanted to say is that the penalty should be higher, like I said on this forum when you did that test.

https://www.wilderssecurity.com/showpost.php?p=762863&postcount=50

 

RejZoR,

Not always. If you're a novice user and are not even aware of the concept of a false positive, you may be caught short and find yourself on the steep end of a learning curve. Simply doing something wrong does not equate to being a moron. Never has, never will.

Blue