VB100, again

This business with Dr Webb doing so well on the antivirus.ru test and so poorly with VB100 really shows how important differences in testing methods are. However, the trend seems to be smaller test sets of more recent malware as a way to sort out the great from the not so hot.

 

Malware is malware- no matter how antiquated. If a specific AV does not detect old and new malware, then it is best to look for another alternative. Consistency for me is the key element, and I would not use an AV that was not consistent across a broad range of varied tests.

 

I will look for another alternative when I get infected and my vendor can't provide me help or tools to fix it.

 

And what, may I ask, would be the point of detecting Brain or Ping-pong?

 

Can you please point to a AV that will detect everything.

 

One AV that detects everything ? That doesn't exist. You need another solution than scanners to accomplish this. Some kind of anti-change solution, like I did.

 

ErikAlbert, I know...
I was just answering Bunkhouse Buck who mention it's best to look for a alternative if a specific AV does not detect new and old malware.

 

Avira has the consistently highest detection rate across many tests of any single engine AV. There are some multi engine AV's that do slightly better with a system performance hit.

Do not interpret the above statement to mean Avira is the best of all AV's. It just tests very well on flat file scanning.

However, no AV will find everything.

 

LOL some people are just plain zombies in here, no ideas,opinions, reactions of
their own, are these wagons not full by now?

Vb is the easiest test to pass, well done CA, your Obviously protecting your
users.

All vendors have access to the wildlist and a few minutes later, done... Passed

Drweb do not however, have access to this list at the moment although they are trying for it, so some people can be glad, their Av is protecting them, on a list generated by someone else.

So, would people still be so serious about this test?

.... Probably, but it means absolutely nothing, how would everyone
else have done with this list by entering the arena blindfolded?

think of it as an exam, most AV's have been given the answers to pass, Drweb has not.

this is not only unfair, but it discredits the test IMMEDIATELY!

any AV that is at a disadvantage in a test, is not proper testing.

 

Yeah, poor DrWeb, they were the only ones to be tested "blindfolded". That must explain why the did worse than the other participants by far.

 

I did not mean all malware is or could be detected. However, I have never had a malware infection in 28 years of using PCs. So it is likely the "threat" is much less than promoters want you to know, and/or the past and present AVs are much more efficacious than most think.

 

Perhaps to prove your av vendor doesn't like jokes at all

 

This test is a joke. Eset has had many years at 100 percent rating yet I have used it several times and had many trojans slip through. I don't care what this test says I am never going back because in the real world things are so different.

 

Folks,

Let's keep this thread focused on the technical topic and not on the people posting.

Naturally, any two users surfing the internet with identical machines and software may experience vastly different exposure to malware due to user unique surfing style and other usage habits. Simply because a user seemingly suffers a near constant stream of infections does not mean every user needs to be armed to the gills, nor does a multiyear malware free surfing experience mean one can crawl the internet with naive abdandon. This is where a commonsense filter is needed.

Yes - the breathless paranoia we are all too easily subjected to is fearmongering hype. Unfortunately, it doesn't always or exclusively originate with vendors. There are plenty of paranoid users out there all too ready to be swept up in the wave.

Yet with that said, don't fall victim to dismissing the real potential for problems incurred due to a single misstep - recognizing that this misstep can be due to both malware and too heavy a load of internally conflicting antimalware.

With that, let's return to the nominal thread topic - the latest VB-100 results - and what those results may, or may not, mean.

Blue

 

Agreed 101%

 

Just use an imaging program such as Acronis and restore to a time before the infection(s). It does not matter if the tests are a joke or if trojans slip through. The ultimate security comes not from the AV, but the ability to restore to a pre-infected state.

 

VB100 isn't a joke, although it may not represent the "real-world" performance of some products.
If you use product XXX, which has a good record at VB100 and other testing bodies, and you get infected, does this mean than those tests are jokes/crap/useless/biased?

 

Sounds like poetry to my ears

You are my man

 

People here can draw a hasty conclusion based on their individual experience. e.g., I got a trojan with Nod32, so the tests that have it highly rated are bs and a joke. Mostly, comments about the tests being jokes are from people who are jokers. A student of logic loves many of the posts on this board- because many posts are devoid of same.

 

As long as the infection did not majorly screw up your OS, restore /imageing software or already steal your personal/banking details.
Maybe i'm missing something here, I know the importance of being able to restore in case of a crash or failure, but isn't relying on restore kinda like after the fact, similar to a scanner. Not the same fix, just after the fact.
So isn't prevention better

 

Correct.
Pure personal experience here

 

No, if you get infected once or twice.

Yes, if you get infected a couple of times while running a VB 100 "Powerhouse" that has for a couple of years a "100 % rating".

 

Of course prevention is better, but if an infection trashes your computer, there is a way out of it. I lost my entire OS from a bad installation, and I restored it to a good prior state in about three hours. Had to do it another time with a drive failure, but it worked without fail.

 

What I would like to see, is a "test" where a user gets his computer infected with a virus that is unknown to his/her antivirus software, and then contacts the av-vendor asking for help. Would the vendor ask for the file, analyze it and then give instructions how to disinfect it? Perhaps they could provide a custom tool to disinfect it? Or how would the vendor react anyway.

 

There are far too many variables in malware infections that drawing conclusions both on test results and personal experiences is misleading at best.
I can elaborate various plausible explanations on why a VB100 powerhouse allowed you to get infected multiple times. Some of these explanations are related to human behaviour.