VB100, again

Check this out:

http://www.channelregister.co.uk/2008/04/03/vista_sp1_av_tests/

In short:

McAfee, Trend , and Sophos failed (Top Tier Vendors)

Others that Failed:
Alwil, BitDefender, Norman, PC Tools, and VirusBuster


Products from Symantec, Microsoft, AVG, and Kaspersky Lab all passed.

Polymorphic viruses were the cause of much trouble.

 

ESET have passed 32 times in a row, haven't missed, since April 2002.
Symantec have passed 37 times in a row, haven't missed, since September 1999.
Quite impressive. NO other AV's are close to those figures.


Cheers

 

A complete list:
- Passed: AEC/Trustport, AVG/Grisoft, Avira, CA (various products), Eset, Fortinet, FRISK, F-Secure, GDATA/AVK, Kaspersky, Kingsoft, Microsoft, MicroWorld/eScan, Redstone (?), Symantec.
- Failed: Agnitum (4 wildlist misses), AhnLab (2 wildlist misses), Alwil/avast! (19 wildlist misses, 1 false positive), BitDefender/SOFTWIN (2 wildlist misses), Bullguard (2 wildlist misses), Doctor Web (47 wildlist misses), Hauri (3 wildlist misses), Ikarus (24 wildlist misses, 6 false positives), K7 Computing (19 wildlist misses, 2 false positives), McAfee (1 wildlist miss), Norman (1 false positive), PC Tools AntiVirus (4 wildlist misses), CAT QuickHeal (2 false positives), Rising (3 wildlist misses, 1 false positive), Security Coverage PC Live (859 wildlist misses, 1 false positive), Sophos (2 wildlist misses), Trend Micro (3 wildlist misses, 2 false positives), VirusBuster (4 wildlist misses), Webroot (2 wildlist misses)

 

DRWeb 47 Wildlist Misses
Ikarus 24 Wildlist Misses
Avast 19 Wildlist Misses

 

Avira History: 2 failures total
Eset History: 3 failures total
Symantec: History: 6 failures total

 

Norman with one false positive. So close!

Symantec, F-Secure, Eset, Avira is all doing good as always.

 

IIRC, ESET's failures have been FPs, never an ITW miss since 1998. And the records are even more impresive when you look at the number of participations of ESET and Symantec (not sure about Avira)

 

Quite right, BUT Avira has only been tested 14 times.
ESET has been tested 52 times
Symantec has been tested 49 times


Cheers

 

Yep, Eset and Symantec are the "800 pound gorillas" of VB100

 

Exactely my point. Eset and Norton wins when it comes to number of participation times and Avira wins this on succesratio. Now choose wisely what is most relevant.

 

Yeah, kind of a shock. The rest of this stuff about past track records of x, y or z is nice, but not nearly as important as current performance.

 

Good job. Thanks for counteracting the fanboy's post.

I wonder why VBA32 is not included in these tests?

 

It's the complete picture
Thanks

 

Just a few notes:

1. VB100% tests with default settings. Otherwise, I really doubt Ikarus would've missed any samples. Of course, chances are it still wouldn't pass the certification test, because then it'd probably kick up a few FPs.

2. avast! has yet to add detection for the April 1st variant(s) of Nuwar/Zhelatin/Peacomm/whatever they call it. Their latest results don't bode well either.

 

VB100 test are done on submited product by the vendor. If they do not submit a product they are not tested. So, VBA must not have submit a product to test on Vista SP1.

 

Even though all of the above take some occasional heat in this forum (especially Symantec), they perform well in terms of the VB100 test and AV-Comparatives as well. Maybe there is a pattern here? But of course we are not supposed to say that this AV is better than that AV, etc.

 

Not quite. If you put it in percent you get a more correct picture.

Eset - 5,8% Failure
Symantec - 12,2% Failure
Avira - 14,2% Failure

Plus Eset & Symantec hasen't failed during the the hole period that Avira have been tested...So

But again as GES/POR said: Choose wisely what is most relevant.
And this is not meant to be a "Which is better than that AV", so if it looks like that from my responses, I apologize


Cheers

 

Note the best long term performers also passed the most recent test. Therefore, the past track record (if good) is predictive of the future. In this case, there is a high correlation between past performance and future performance.

 

Of course you can't compare by failure/pass between products that have been tested since the very first VB100% test and those joined year or two ago...

 

Ok, let's compare since Avira joined then.

Eset: 0% Failure
Symantec: 0% Failure
Avira: 14,2% Failure


Cheers

 

hmmm...even better picture now

 

Not Avira's fault i guess..
plus, i like av-c & av-test.org reviews better

 

Yep me too, and then again, they are only tests ALL of them. Stick to what's best for YOUR rig, temper, wallet, favorite GUI, whatever turns you on, and you should be home safe


Cheers

 

Re: Doctor Web (47 wildlist misses)

I think they priorize russian malware over the rest

 

Re: Doctor Web (47 wildlist misses)

I doubt it, especially when you consider what the WildList contains.

A more plausible explanation is the presence of polymorphics in the test set, which are a test of not only signatures, but of the scanning engine's quality as well.