Behaviour and REAL protection with various AVs in REAL environment

Here you can see the results of healing infested computers by company Fomsoft http://www.antivirus.ru/AntiVirPS712.html ,which is specialised in recovering lost data, curing infested machines and all the services connected with PC health.
Some more tests http://www.antivirus.ru/VirAnaliz.html
http://www.antivirus.ru/VirAnalizB.html
Dangerous post card test http://www.antivirus.ru/VirAnalizD.html
http://www.antivirus.ru/VirAnalizA.html
Only REAL viruses and threats,which are TRULY perilous for PCs and found on the infested machines were submitted to VirusTotal. This is a retrospective of the real picture how this or that antivirus dealt with REAL, harmful malware.
You can use either http://babelfish.altavista.com/ or http://www.online-translator.com/srvurl.asp?lang=en (which offers much better level of translation-recommended)to translate the pages from Russian into English.
The results are separated into months and the annual result is presented.
I stress that it is not a test a-la AV-Comparatives, but a mere constatation of the real picture of how AVs are able to solve true computer infection.Only real environment,battle situation.
It is noteworthy that this results more or less coincide with those, given on http://winnow.oitc.com/AntiVirusPerformance.html , that in my opinion shows which AVs do thier work well.

 

When I go to this site http://www.antivirus.ru/VirAnaliz.html I get this

 

It is more that strange-I use Opera browser too and fradulent sites checking is enabled, but no indication.
Antivirus.ru is an official site of a reputed company,specialized in recovering data.
Try to translate it via http://www.online-translator.com/srvurl.asp?lang=en
I think it is just an unsavoury misunderstanding.

 

Has just checked with my Opera browser.
Here what it says:

Opera has no information about the current site. It is not on the blacklist of suspected fraud sites, and it has not been verified by a trusted third party.

Please report this site if you believe it should be blacklisted.

 

I too use Opera and get no warnning. Hmmmmm.

 

this thread isn't headed anywhere & the info looks questionable I hope a mod would look at this & delte if necessary...

 

Isn't it interesting to see what all these antiviruses are worth in REAL situation or bigc73542 just wanted to lure us astray from discussing a serious ,indeed, subject.
I ask the moderator to remove bigc73542 nwarning as irrelevant, cuse it misleads and frightens visitors.

 

I get the same warning when visiting the translation site, bigc is not trying to mislead or frighten visitors of anything.

 

I don't understand why a regular user would be eager to see a thread deleted.
Shouldn't the concern come solely from a moderator?

 

SiteAdvisor gave it a green light. However the translation part didn't translate too well for me.

 

I personally have the utmost respect for bigc and feel if anything needs deleting, IT IS YOU.

 

i dont think there is anything dodgy with the link bigc, it seems to be an opera FP.

after checking the results, its nice to see drweb once again scoring 'extremely high' on all the tests, on these real-world threats, its also quite disturbing how some are really quite awful!

a few screenshots to all who might now be afraid from checking the results, due to Opera.











maybe the OP should have posted them like this, its a pain in the butt to translate different pages.

interesting find though, TY.

 

past months results........ which includes JAN 2008.




1# Drweb
2# Kaspersky
2# Webwasher
3# Ikarus
4# F-Secure
5# Antivir
6# Sophos
7# Bitdefender
8# AVG
9# VBA
10# Panda
11# NOD32
12# Microsoft
12# Fortinet
13# esafe
14# Quickheal

the rest i just cant be bothered adding

 

ok, the obvious question I have, and it isnt because of Aviras ranking but, ClamAV. These tests have to be including false positives for such a detection ranking by this AV. Wouldnt you agree or am I missing something.

 

actually over the year, clamav didnt even make the top 14 that i could be bothered to post.

but maybe clamav is improving, it also scored a very poor result on that shadowserver test over the year, but lately it scores well on there too.

 

AVG did well, and was very close to BitDefender. Also it apparently did so without the Ewido detection.

 

Its always so amazing how well Russian AV's do on Russian tests. Bring me another bowl of borscht. Its good for you.

 

The Russian avs are the best,

Another person dismissing tests because 'your' av is not at the top, the same was said for anti-malware.ru, but that is just crazy.

 

It's also quite amazing to see people rush to defend AV tests they've only heard of for the first time because 'their' AV was a top scorer.

I think I'll have a bowl as well.

 

False positives are not taken into account in these tests so slow and extremely aggressive engines have good detection results. This is why software like Ikarus, webwasher, drweb etc do so well.

Overall, kaspersky seems to be the best AV - it is consistantly ranked highly in the majority of AV tests. This is coming from a nod32 user.

 

Why not read the explanation for the methodics of the tests first before ranting of FP.
False positives infected machines You yourself understood what you said?All the malware were samlped from infested machines,brought by consumers to be repaired after they had lost their data.
Only REAL threats were submitted to VirusTotal,so no false positives.

 

Easy,boy,easy.Otherwise your bloodpressure will soar.Don't split with fury

 

The point im trying to make is that ordinary home users may be misguided by those results as although it is clear that the top ranked av's in the test have great detection rates, they throw up countless numbers of FP's in real life situations which could result in the average user deleting files that may not actually be infected.

Therefore, the results aren't reliable.

 

In this test, it was real malware only.

As for fps, they were not tested, it shows avs that missed infections and also the speed of signature adding on the new

Sure, a user can say their av has 99% detection according to
av-comp or whatever, but this just shows it doesn't match up to the real threats that are circling.

Personally I prefer to be protected against the real threats on the net, rather than sing and dance about a so-called 99% detection rate.

Also I find it quite interesting that ppl label drweb as the agressive fp
machine, nobody seems to label fprot as that on here, and thier new technology was not even tested

 

So, for January, Ikarus has a good score.
The T3 engine still in development; I have high expectations of this antivirus.

If only they could make a little effort into the interface and options available.