Testing of Infected computers

..... for 'that most complicated' malware.

Test

Results

Methodology

Discuss

your thoughts?

 

Very interesting.... but is it enough a test with just 17 sample?
Were sample choosen randomly? It does not look like they were....

At least they should have tried a random selection of sample in more rounds following the criteria they describe just to be a bit more robust...

Cheers,
Fax

 

hi fax,

read this, it explains why each threat was selected.
im happy to see a massive improvement on removal for drweb, between the versions.

 

Hi C.S.J.
Indeed I have read it... of course its an interesting test however I doubt that it is really rappresentative. We have seen many examples in the past about tests with limited samples . But this is more for virus experts to judge...

Regardless the number and kind of malware choosen, an antivirus main function is to prevent infection not to clean it afterwards. Of course, users that cleans PC for work, for hobby or for friends will find this test most useful.

Most interesting information I can extract from this test is that generic antivirus products have evolved very much recently and are able to deal with spyware and adware as good as mainstream dedicated spyware scanners (though they were not included in the test).

Cheers,
Fax

 

I concur that 17 samples is far from enough. It is too easy to pick up 17 samples that would make antivirus X looks good.

Kasperskogo.. lol, funny translation

 

but this is removal, not detection, its alot harder to test against,

detection is simple numbers, and work out a percentage, removal is much harder to do, which is why there is not many removal tests around.

I know, and 'doctor the web' i thought was quite good aswell, never heard of it like that before

 

I agree. 17 samples is not enough.

 

For some reason I feel like I am looking at a malware-test review.

 

i remember when IBK once posted a link to an interesting self protection test, with 'not many checks' or whatever, and he is a professional

and yes, this removal test is from the same people.

 

But you are not. These guys are well respected testers (in Russia at least).


tD

 

yeah, i must have wrote it all then.

thanks TD.

 

Every single test is meaningless! Period. But once a while we get a chance to look at these tests from a different angle with different prospective.


tD

 

It would be interesting to see Dr.Web 4.44 tested in one of AV-test's removal efficiency tests.

This one is definitely interesting to look at though! Indeed, Dr.Web 4.44 is a significant step forward for Dr.Web in some respects.

Maybe I'll post some more thoughts later, currently I am in the middle of studying for an important exam!

 

The result is meaningless to me, but the differences from 4.33 and 4.44 is quite amazing from a removal point-of-view.

i know, but they seem to only do these removal tests for the big players like norton etc etc.

 

It's good PR for Dr.Web.
Dr.Web is the only program that had two versions tested.
It reads like an advertisement for Dr.Web.The headline for the test should read "Look how much Dr.Web has improved!" And I'm sure that they have had some improvement between versions.
But this test has little value unless you like Dr.Web.

 

good, cos drweb never gets good PR, especially not in this place.

others did well aswell like the nortons and kasperskys of the world, they got the awards, but loads failed, and its an interesting read into removal.

since when does removal ever get tested, not v.often.

 

I am wondering why F-Secure is so much worse than Kaspersky. Are the differences between KAV 6.0 and 7.0 that significant (F-Secure uses KAV 6 engine)?

 

Hi chris,
the link IBK posted to was showing how good the self protection of the antiviruses are. not 7 samples.
lodore

 

I think this test is not meaningless. It shows something.
Esp. the difference between two versions of the same product.
And most cleaning tests are done on a very limited number of samples. The selection of samples seems to make sense.

Greetz from Vienna!

 

edit:

yeah lodore, i just meant it doesnt test much but is still a very good test.

this time, its removal not self protection.

 

Then by all means, this is interesting. I have been preaching a long time that detection is only part of the equation. That if a AV cant clean, it is crap. Eset, Avira and a hosts of others fall into the crap of cleaning catagory. Dr. Web has always been know for its cleaning ability as Kaspersky, Norton.

Now on the flip side Chris is, you also have to be able to detect it, before you can clean it.

 

Norton and Kaspersky still rule the cleaning and detecting group. But I think Eset, maybe Avira and others are going to start closing the gap. Dr.Web just needs to go in the other direction, detection and it willb e fine to.

 

i think ive made my arguments on that already and we aint going down this road again trjam.

i hope bitdefender 2008 improved its cleaning though on v.10

its also shocking that nobody recieved the platinum award, it just shows that all talk of detections and features dont mean everything.

i knew 4.44 improved its removal compared to 4.33, but seeing it in this test has eased my mind a little bit.
its also nice to see 4.44 being the only one to remove the rootkit, i was never sure about the rootkit thing, but again... eased my mind.

-------------
@jeff

sure removal means nothing if it isnt detected

but, the same applies to detected threats that cant be removed, right?

it is a shame it doesnt mention what these threats actually did, would have been nice to know, and what the product tried to do against it, even if not completing cleaning it.

 

That is one of the reasons behind my previous post.