Etrust Antivirus - how good is it?

ITW testing was good but not so effective with zoo malware and overall it came 9th out of 25 scanners when tested on XP and Windows 2000.

However, this test is quite old now(2003) and therefore some of the scanner versions too. For example, Kaspersky 4.0 was tested!!

I would classify Etrust in this category; very good for ITW detection but not so good for zoo malware.

Trend Micro (other AV's?) declined to participate " as they don't wish to participate in our test as they concentrate on ITW detection and are aware that their products will produce "unfavourable results" for zoo test-beds."

I'm off to test Peruvian Antivirus

 

Personal speculation as to why an av company doesn't want to participate in a certain test is just that speculation. Trend micro is a very good av at ITW detection and malware of other types. Trend micro internet security 2005 and Nod32 are the only two av's at check mark testing that are certified in the spyware and adware catagories the last time I looked about three weeks ago.

 

That seems to concur with the results of Kobra's tests in 2004.

1a) MKS_Vir 2004 - 321/321 0 Missed - 100%
1b) eXtendia AVK - 321/321 0 Missed - 100%
2a) Kaspersky 5.0 - 320/321 1 Missed - 99.70% (with Extended Database ON)
2b) McAfee VirusScan 8.0 - 319/321 + 2 (2 found as joke programs - heuristically) - 99%
3) F-Secure - 319/321 2 Missed - 99.37%
4) GData AVK - 317/321 4 Missed - 98.75%
5) RAV + Norton (2 way tie) - 315/321 6 Missed - 98.13%
6) Dr.Web - 310/321 11 Missed - 96.57%
7) CommandAV + F-Prot + BitDefender (3 Way Tie) - 309/321 12 Missed - 96.26%
ETrust - 301/321 20 Missed - 93.76%
9) Trend - 300/321 21 Missed - 93.45%
10) Avast! Pro - 299/321 22 Missed - 93.14%
11) Panda - 298/321 23 Missed - 92.83%
12) Virus Buster - 290/321 31 Missed - 90.34%
13) KingSoft - 288/321 33 Missed - 89.71%
14) NOD32 - 285/321 36 Missed (results identical with or without advanced heuristics) - 88.78%
15) AVG Pro - 275/321 46 Missed - 85.66%
16) AntiVIR - 268/321 53 Missed - 83.48%
17) Antidote - 252/321 69 Missed - 78.50%
1 ClamWIN - 247/321 74 Missed - 76.94%
19) UNA - 222/321 99 Missed - 69.15%
20) Norman - 215/321 106 Missed - 66.97%
21) Solo - 182/321 139 Missed - 56.69%
22) Fire AV - 179/321 142 Missed - 55.76%
23) V3 Pro - 109/321 212 Missed - 33.95%
24) Per_AV - 75/321 - 246 Missed - 23.36%
25) Proland - 73/321 248 Missed - 22.74%
26) Sophos - 50/321 271 Missed - 15.57%
27) Hauri - 49/321 272 Missed - 15.26%
2 CAT Quickheal - 21/321 300 Missed - 6%
29) Vir_iT - 10/321 311 Missed - 3%
30) Ikarus - Crashed on first virus. - 0%

My own personal results with eTrust were it consistantly scoring in the 85% range on a wide variety of Zoo samples combined with ITW and Poly threats. So I wasn't overly impressed considering the better options out there. Again, this is just my opinion of my testing and field experiance.

 

I think it's obsolete and cannot be considered today...

 

Last time I tried it, in my un-proffesional amature tests, it scored well below par against other AV's. But alas this only one test and as like all the others On-demand only not real time.

 

Hi likuidkewl,

You may be an amateur tester, but I know you try real hard to supply people with the most unbiased info you can. The biggest problem I have with some reviews/opinions is when a tester says that brand x missed viruses or brand b is crap. It really adds nothing to a discussion unless they back up the claim. For all we know it missed 1 virus in a year and the writer is just mad because it was not perfect. I would really love it if reviewers put the actual name of the viruses that were missed.

 

Iv'e seen gaming sites where EZ antivirus is well thought of.

 

We're using eTrust AV (not EZ) on our corporate systems and we're quite pleased with it. eTrust has a very practical central management console and very effective hierarchical distribution mechanism. Managing a corporate AV coudn't be easier.
eTrust never let us down, even catching virusses Antigen missed (and Antigen is using 5 different engines!), catching the regular trojans in http requests and it did find the single blaster running around. It catches virusses on USB media and we feel our desktops are clean and stay clean.
So, perhaps eTrust doesn't catch all Zoo virusses, as long as they stay there, I couldn't care less. If they are on the loose, they are in the wild and we will have the signatures in a few hours. Is that a risk? Hardly, since we use layered security (we don't even rely on Antigen alone, we use a Barracuda with Clamav on our mail backbone, challenge that!).

Security is a mindset too, and that's is a bigger problem than not catching 100% of all (un)known virusses or samples of virusses.

As I said, I'm pretty pleased with eTrust, although I don't use it at home. Layered too, you see, I'm on linux (back to Ubuntu).

 

If you use something like Safe'n'Sec, then the AV you use becomes more irrelevant considering by some estimates, SNS is 100% effective.

I've run honeypots here with ONLY SNS as protection and failed to infect them.

So with something else, eTrust should be fine.