New AV test from VTC(University of Hamburg)

Discussion in 'other anti-virus software' started by Technodrome, Feb 4, 2003.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Technodrome

    Technodrome Security Expert

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2002
    Posts:
    2,140
    Location:
    New York
    AntiVirus Scanner Tests December 2002
    Published January 29, 2003

    Many AV Products Tested! ;)

    http://agn-www.informatik.uni-hamburg.de/vtc/en0212.htm


    Technodrome
     
  2. Firefighter

    Firefighter Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2002
    Posts:
    1,670
    Location:
    Finland
    To Technodrome from Firefighter!

    "Byaaaaah", I'm going to cry, "snif, snif", what happened to my favourites, DrWeb and RAV? Do they have made any doping tests yet? :'( ;)

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

    Best regards,
    Firefighter!
     
  3. Firefighter

    Firefighter Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2002
    Posts:
    1,670
    Location:
    Finland
    To Technodrome From Firefighter!

    By the way, is it really so slow process to get results published, that one year isn't enough? :rolleyes: :cool:


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

    Best regards,
    Firefighter!
     
  4. Technodrome

    Technodrome Security Expert

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2002
    Posts:
    2,140
    Location:
    New York
    VTC test "2002-12" was started in January 2002 and ended in December 2002.

    Read more about testing procedure: ftp://agn-www.informatik.uni-hamburg.de/pub/texts/tests/pc-av/2002-12/0xecsum.txt


    Technodrome
     
  5. Firefighter

    Firefighter Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2002
    Posts:
    1,670
    Location:
    Finland
    To Technodrome from Firefighter!

    It was interesting, that although that was an independent university made test, there were still 3 av-producers, who didn't let their product to be tested. What were they afraid of?

    My first paid program was the winner, McAfee, but it was so huge in hard disk, that I can load DrWeb, Avast 4 Pro, RAV, Kaspersky 4.0 Pro at the same time to my PC, and still they are using less hard disk than McAfee (with Firewall) and McAfee was a resource hog too.

    By the way, I think that by combining some of these I mentioned above, you are in better safe than using only McAfee! :rolleyes: :cool:


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

    Best regards,
    Firefighter!
     
  6. Firefighter

    Firefighter Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2002
    Posts:
    1,670
    Location:
    Finland
    To Techodrome from Firefighter!

    Congratulations about the first Millenium! :D :cool:


    "The truth is out there, but it hurts!

    Best regards,
    Firefighter!
     
  7. Technodrome

    Technodrome Security Expert

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2002
    Posts:
    2,140
    Location:
    New York
    Cool! Thanks. :cool:


    Technodrome
     
  8. root

    root Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2002
    Posts:
    1,723
    Location:
    Missouri, USA
    NAI seems to have scored very high in this round of testing. I seem to remember that McAfee and NAI tied the knot a while back and are connected at the hip. Or was it vice-versa?
    Anyway, when McAfee first hooked up to NAI things started getting confusing. Currently at VB they list NAI Viruscan as McAfee.
    How many different versions of NAI and or McAfee AVs are currently floating around? I do know that the last time I helped a guy with McAfee on his machine, it was a disaster. I also know the last time I tried to install McAfee on my machine, my machine became cripple computer.
    I also hear over and over how bad McAfee has become.
    So, at this point in time I am wondering why NAI Viruscan did so well at VTC and is it a pure NAI version or McAfee or a hybred? It also does well at VB.
    I know I could do a little searching and figure it out, but I'm wondering about Techies take on this.

    I see AVP is still hanging in there as I would expect. DrWeb was tested as an old version, and I do believe it would do better now. Especially since it didn't see any viruses compressed by the latest version of WinRar. I believe it can handle that now.

    Very difficult to wade thru all the information there. I did not see a consise overall comparison listed. Did anybody find one?
     
  9. Firefighter

    Firefighter Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2002
    Posts:
    1,670
    Location:
    Finland
    To Root from Firefighter!

    Hi, as I understood right, the all av-programs were mentioned to be those versions about one year ago. I haven't seen anything about upgrading the av-programs, at least they have to update those programs during the whole test!

    But still we have to recognize the facts like a man and let's congratulate the winner in that test, but maybe after the next big test the situation will be something else? :mad: :( :eek: :rolleyes: :cool:

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

    Best regards,
    Firefighter!
     
  10. Technodrome

    Technodrome Security Expert

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2002
    Posts:
    2,140
    Location:
    New York
    Virus Bulletin has a different testing methodology. According to VB, if AV product finds a false positive it will fail. If AV product is able to find virus by using on-demand scanner but fails to find the same virus by using on-access scanner it will FAIL. Missing viruses due extensions it will also have impact on receiving VB award (they are testing av product only by using default settings) etc. Someone would argue that VB test is pickier or more professional.
    To get the whole picture about VB testing you MUST read their magazine. Looking at tables it misleading.

    Mcafee is a very good AV product in terms of detection rate. But its buggy as hell. To VTC test NAI submitted Mcafee VS 4. xx Version. NAI VS or McAfee VS is the same. They use identical dat files. Dr Solomon is different story (before acquiring).

    VTC has a different testing methodology from VB and someone may find it a bit confusing.
    read: ftp://agn-www.informatik.uni-hamburg.de/pub/texts/tests/pc-av/2002-12/5protoco.txt


    Technodrome
     
  11. Technodrome

    Technodrome Security Expert

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2002
    Posts:
    2,140
    Location:
    New York
    Testbeds(viruses) were frozen on October 31, 2001(tests boot, file and macro script viruses/malware.).

    Antivirus updates were frozen at the end of December, 2001.


    Technodrome
     
  12. Firefighter

    Firefighter Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2002
    Posts:
    1,670
    Location:
    Finland
    To Technodrome from Firefighter!

    Thanks for advicing me.

    I can't still understand, how an av-program can detect some 100 % of viruses after one year of updating or were those viruses old ones? :rolleyes: :cool:

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

    Best regards,
    Firefighter!
     
  13. Technodrome

    Technodrome Security Expert

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2002
    Posts:
    2,140
    Location:
    New York
    Read my post above.
    Testbeds(viruses) were frozen on October 31. So no viruses have been added after this date.


    Technodrome
     
  14. Firefighter

    Firefighter Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2002
    Posts:
    1,670
    Location:
    Finland
    To Technodrome from Firefighter!

    Thanks, I am getting too old. I have no strenght enough to read eveything to the absolute final!

    But there is still one thing, why the test stayed so a long time then, when all viruses have been determined at the beginning of the test? o_O :doubt: ;)


    "The truth is out there, but it hurts"

    "Best regards,
    Firefighter!
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.