http://www.av-comparatives.org/

IMPORTANT!!! I took a deeper look on why NOD32 get those results. I found the reason; the person who tested NOD32 made a fatal error (damn ). The fixed results will be up in some hours. Please update then your data. It was really lucky that I discovered this before the 1st March, as the official results have to be up at that time.

 

To IBK from Firefighter!

Don't worry about your mistake! Even VB has made some mistakes recently, McAfee 6-2002 and Avast 2-2004 were awarded afterwards to get their 100% VB Awards.


"The truth is out there, but it hurts!"

Best regards,
Firefighter!

 

I am really much worry about this fact, even if this is the first public test. Well, I will learn from the mistakes. The fixed results should now be up.
As I just noticied this, I will have to think if I will test next time in August again NOD32, as if it has problems to detect virality in non-executable extension, it does not fulfill the conditions. But as NOD32 is a very popular scanner and everyone want to see its resutls, I will see if I can/will change some conditions in next months.

 

To IBK from Firefighter!

The zipped results were not corrected but the online results were new!

Best regards,
Firefighter!

 

Many thanks for letting me know! Now it should be all up (really) ;-)

 

Hi all,

Just my curiousity, if you read an archives ( PDF ) that published on VB website and look at comparative review you'll see something as following.

ItW Overall 100.00% Macro 100.00%
ItW Overall (o/a) 100.00% Standard 99.73%
ItW File 100.00% Polymorphic 99.82%

I want to know that :

Macro, Standard and Polymorphic virus sample are the ITW viruses or Zoo or anything else?

what is the meaning of " (o/a) " ?

Sorry for stupid question, Thanks.

 

To NOP from Firefighter!

Macro, Standard and Polymorphic samples are Zoo viruses in VB tests, because how it is possible that there were almost the same viruses 14 months in polymorphic samples?

The detecting rates are weighted, not real detecting rates.

"The truth is out there, but it hurts!"

Best regards,
Firefighter!

 

Oh.... Somone made a boo-boo, so now NOD32 rises from medicocrity all of the sudden? This inspires confidence in the test, to be sure. What, did Eset's lawyers contact you?

 

To nameless from Firefighter!

U have to be kidding!

Eset is still a minor player in av-business, what do u expect Sophos and Trend Micro representatives to do because they were poorer than NOD in total without DOS and other OS or backdoors and trojans in AV-comparatives.org 2-2004 tests?


"The truth is out there, but it hurts!

Best regards,
Firefighter!

 

Again: maybe you did not understood exactly one thing: ALL AV products that are listed/tested on the website are ALL VERY GOOD SCANNERS! All have very high detection rates, but someone must everytime be "the last" if you make a ranking. But on the website is no ranking to see, as all products are good and detection rates changes fast - ESET has the samples and they constantly add samples. If I would test the programs in one month, the "rankings" as you are making would be probably totally different. There are no "loosers" in our tests. All are winners.

And no, ESET's lawyers did not contact me. Anton Zajac was sick last weeks, so probably this is the reason why he did not noticied me about this issue before I made the results public. I had to discover it without Zajac :-(
Good that it is fixed now.

 

This statement needs clarification, FF. Can you expound?

Thanks!

 

To JimIT from Firefighter!

About VB detecting rates look at this link.

http://www.virusbtn.com/old/comparatives/Win95/199801/protocol.html

For this reason, one av may have let's say 225 misses in polymorphics, but it actually missed one single virus. In the same time an other av may have let's say 25 misses, but it actually missed 3 viruses and it's detecting rate is lower.


"The truth is ou there, but it hurts!"

Best regards,
Firefighter!

 

I write in english so everyone can understand me.

@Wilders and all others: yes, there is something new to notify you

-> I removed some more bad samples and fixed the results again. As I predicted, the results did not changed that much even if I removed the bad samples. Some samples were in the meantime added from some av companies - anyway they are bad and needed to be removed; they were probably added because many users submitted them and asked for detection, even if they do not work properly.

@ESET and all other AV companies: please update the PDF and the other data that is only accessible for AV related companies.

If more bad samples are found, I will notify it under the results, but not change again the results.

 

To IBK of Firefighter!

Can we expect that all those av:s that were tested are able to detect all those tested infected files after a while?


"The truth is out there, but it hurts!"

Best regards,
Firefighter!

 

yes you can but it depends also from the AV company; if they give to the samples low priority, it can take loong time while before they detect all; some AV does in the meantime already detect over 50% of their missed samples. Even if the scan was done just 3 weeks ago, the data is atm again outdated, as detection rates changes fast.

 

To IBK from Firefighter!

Thanks for Your answer. I have still an other question. I am not sure how many different infections there were in Your test including all categories, can You advice me a bit, Please?


"The truth is ou there, but it hurts!"

Best regards,
Firefighter!

 

Thats quite hard to answer, as to determine what is called a different infection is not always easy. I could refer to various names given by AVs (e.g. over 44000 different names by KAV in total), but thats not exactly at all. - and i prefer to do not write all details here to the public...

 

In most "sciences"the person discovering something"new" names that finding(in this case viruses etc)and all other researchers adopt that given name. Isn't it about time the AV vendors/industry fell into line with this practice,it would stop the same piece of malware having multiple names!

 

That is near impossible. When worm or virus appears, in AV companies are getting sapples in almost no time. Who is the first, who has the right to give name.... I am afraid the things will work as now for a very long time.... Anyway, maybe you noticed after some time they almost in every case meet some common name or two or three for a worm or virus

 

The problem about "who was first?" applies to all discoveries but eventually one "name " is adopted this doesn't seem to happen with the Av companies there are still viruses from the past that have more than one name,and they shouldn't(good job the medical profession dont operate the same way:-your holiday would be over whilst trying to find out which jabs you needed/were up to date to protect you against diseases with multiple names!)