Virus Bulletin 100% Award for November...

<OS Windows 2003 Server>
Awarded Products:

AhnLab V3Net SE SP2
CAV Vet Anti-Virus 10.59.2
Eset NOD32 1.529
CAT T QuickHeal X Gen 7.0
FRISK F-Prot Antivirus 3.14b
DialogueScience Dr.Web 4.30
F-Secure Anti-Virus for Servers 5.41
Grisoft AVG Anti-Virus System 6.0.524 321
NAI McAfee VirusScan 7.10 4.2.60 4296
Kaspersky KAV 4.5.0.58
MicroWorld Software eScan 10,1,0,2
SOFTWIN BitDefender Standard Edition 7.1
Sophos Anti-Virus 3.74
VirusBuster 4.4 Build 2
Symantec SAV Corporate Edition 8.1.0.25
Trend Micro ServerProtect 5.56 Build (1007)


DrWeb, SAV (Symantec) and NOD32 scored 100% in all categories.


tECHNODROME

 

these results are not published on the website
how could u find it?

 

,inacross - Check the following URL.

http://www.google.ca/search?q=Bulletin+for+Anti-virus+awards&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en&btnG=Google+Search&meta=

 

Who Failed?

 

Hello Technodrome

The url is a google hit list. Where on the list is your reference?

 

I got my sources.



tECHNODROME

 

Alvil Awast 4.1.29
Ca e Trust Antivirus 7.0.139 - false possitive issue
GDATA Antivirus Kit 12.0.5 - false possitive issue
Norman Virus Control 5.60.13
NWI Virus Chaser 5.0

 

Only hint i need to guess on the source, does it start with http or https?

 

CA eTrust using InoculateIT or Vet engine ?

 

To Minacross from Firefighter!

If u looked at the Technodrome list u can see that Vet passed. Don't worry, I'll bet that Inoculate engine missed less than Vet engine! One or some false positives doesn't mean so much when the real detecting rate is one of the very best!

In my mind the 100% VB Award has lost it's purpose, when the real detecting rate has nothing to do with the Award.

If you can wait some days or so the VirusP test is published, because the tests have been done some days ago.


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

Best regards,
Firefighter!l

 

> In my mind the 100% VB Award has lost it's purpose, when the real detecting rate has nothing to do with the Award.

That's in your mind Firefighter ... but it's obvious that you live in a fantasy world of your own creation.

Name one test that, in your "expert" opinion, is conducted with the same bulletproof methodology to the same exacting standards with the same degree of professionalism as the VB100 ... and this time try to come up with something valid ... to date, all your quoted facts and figures have been from tests by VXers and low-credibility wannabes using "virus" samples of doubtful provenance.

Have you ever wondered why no reputable antivirus expert ... not even those employed by vendors who don't win the VB100 Award ... agrees with either your "findings" or your view of Virus Bulletin ?

"The truth is in there ... if you can understand it!"

 

To Rodzilla from Firefighter!

Thank's for telling me about my fantasy world.

After that u said of course I'll choose Hauri and not maybe KAV because Hauri has won the VB award in Windows XP june 2003. Look at the link:

http://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?t=9829;start=60

It doesn't mean anything that KAV missed only ONE SAMPLE W32/Etap but found ALL those other 28 SAMPLES that W32/Etap and all other samples too but made unfortunately one false positive.

Hauri missed totally 11 368 samples but made no false positive, so of course it was better.

I mentioned that VirusP 11-2003 test in this case only because looking at those two tests, VB and VirusP, you can see which is better, VET or Inoculate engine!


"Truth is out there, but it hurts!"

Best regards,
Firefighter!

 

To Rodzilla from Firefighter!

U said. "Have you ever wondered why NO reputable antivirus expert ... not even those employed by vendors who don't win the VB100 Award ... agrees with either your "findings" or your view of Virus Bulletin?"

Look at this CA site:

http://www.my-etrust.com/products/Antivirus.cfm

About ICSA Certification:

"Several independent third parties test and certify antivirus software. THE MOST WIDELY RECOGNIZED ORGANIZATION is the International Computer Security Association (ICSA). To be certified by the ICSA, the software must detect 100% of viruses "in the wild" (in general distribution), and AT LEAST 90% of the more than 6000 test viruses. All versions of eTrust EZ Antivirus are ICSA-certified. The test results are available on the web at www.icsa.net"

When my opinion is that VB isn't the best av-tester, after this above I'm not alone!

PS. Have u seen many personal insults I have written?


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

Best regards,
Firefighter!

 

Firefighter!,

what is VirusP? is it this site: http://users.forthnet.gr/ath/antwnhspetrakhs/index2.html?

regards,
Mina

 

Veritas Non Visum

 

> Thank's for telling me about my fantasy world.

You're welcome. I hope it encourages you take a closer look at yourself.

> After that u said of course I'll choose Hauri and not maybe KAV because Hauri has won the VB award in Windows XP june 2003. Look at the link:

Now you're just being silly.

 

To Minacross from Firefighter!

There is allways Google search u can use with!


Best regards,
Firefighter!

 

Ymmärtää totuus kanssa aivot ei jalka sisäinen suu.

 

> U said. "Have you ever wondered why NO reputable antivirus expert ... not even those employed by vendors who don't win the VB100 Award ... agrees with either your "findings" or your view of Virus Bulletin?"

> Look at this CA site:

Where does Computer Associates say "the 100% VB Award has lost it's purpose, when the real detecting rate has nothing to do with the Award." ?

I must have missed that bit.

> When my opinion is that VB isn't the best av-tester, after this above I'm not alone!

I recall someone ... it may even have been you ... saying that Eset quotes Virus Bulletin because it's the only test in which NOD32 excels. Should you not consider "All versions of eTrust EZ Antivirus are ICSA-certified." in the same light ?

Your anti-NOD32 arguments are, and always have been, sheer puffery anyway. In addition to holding the world record in VB100 awards, NOD32 is also ISCA-certified ... and NOD32 is the first (and to date, the only) antivirus program in the world with Checkmark certification for Windows 2003 Server.

> PS. Have u seen many personal insults I have written?

I hope you don't think I'm being personally insulting. I'm merely doing exactly as you do ... ie: pointing out facts and asking questions.

 

To Rodzilla from Firefighter!

I'm not gonna to join with that NOD debat because I think it is OT just now!

When I showed some links of different av-tests, my only purpose was to make wider the viewpoint of different av:s capability to detect malwares so that someone can evaluate their choices, no more or less. When someone says that VB isn't the nr. 1 tester found in the web, is there something bad in it?


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

Best regards,
Firefighter!

 

To QSection from Firefighter!

I appreciate your finnish spelling but can you say that in english too that everyone can see what you said!


Best regards,
Firefighter!

 

To Rodzilla from Firefighter!

Am I wrong when I think that I am a sort of pain in someones a....?

I would recommed Asacol suppositories, they will cure some pains in that section!


Best regards,
Firefighter!

 

Guys, would you mind stop this

 

> When someone says that VB isn't the nr. 1 tester found in the web, is there something bad in it?

Firefighter, you go out of your way to seek out shonky tests in which NOD32 performed badly ... then you tout those tests as Gospel Truths and blindly refuse to accept that they have little or no standing in the antivirus industry.

You once said "Unfortunately av-test.org and VirusP are almost only testers that have enough wide virusbase to get all programs collapse. If we leave those two testers completely outside, what we have left? I think it is only VirusBulletin with those so called in the Wild viruses, which are far away from that wideness that those two have in their tests." ... but now you've changed your tune and say ICSA is the #1 antivirus tester because CA says so ?

Well .......... so what ? NOD32 HAS ICSA CERTIFICATION !!!

Granted, NOD32 doesn't do well in av-test.org and VirusP tests ... but even if NOD32 was rated #1 in those tests, I would not pay them any attention BECAUSE THEY HAVE NO CREDIBILITY!

The way you babble on, one would think that Virus Bulletin was the only tester in the world to ever rate NOD32 highly ... but that's nowhere near the truth. You can tout all the shonky tests you wish, but the fact is, the three awards with the highest credibility in the antivirus industry are Virus Bulletin, ICSA, and Checkmark ... and no matter which way you shuffle them, NOD32 IS CERTIFIED BY ALL THREE!

 

you do not get the point rod.. vb, icsa etc are well known and undisputed authorities in this field, but they have nothing to do with how efficient an av program is stopping malware in HOME USERS PC'S... THESE ARE ALL DESIGNED FOR THE CORPORATE WORLD. in a perfect world itw virii would be the only thing corporate admins ought to be worried about... and i understand perfectly why vb puts so much meaning to false positives, it's a lot of work for an admin if suddenly there is 1000 workstations reported infected and it turns out to be a false positive... could be very well that a change of av proggie is in order..
but why is it inportant for av companies to do well in vb? it's because the really influential people in the business, the security people of LARGE companies subscribe it and read it... they buy the software.. and a hundred thousand licenses sold makes a difference.. the corporate money is the important money in this business. vb statistics are important to them coz with 100000 workstations in corporate networks in the wild viruses are the most common threat, and with these amounts of pc's there is room for a statistical approach

the wildlist viruses are just a small caption of the malware ready to infect a home user, yet it's what vb icsa and checkmark are all about..
so what i'm saying is that these tests mentioned by ff represent more the true situation a general home users faces, with trojans and stuff in the testsets, that's why they're valuable, there doesn't even have to be a hint of scientific research in them ...