Why Anti-Trojans?

Thanks Michael, Looking forward to your analysis.

 

Yes, Larry, $49.95 ("Under $50.00! ) isn't bad for KAV Personal - but are we sure the version being pushed here isn't KAV Personal Pro? For 99.95 ("Under $100.00!" ).

Is that per year? Pete

 

Yes its for a year spy1 ...

 

You guys might like an equal kind of discussion here
http://www.zdnet.com/anchordesk/stories/story/0,10738,2911837,00.html

*repaired url*

 

As far as virus detection goes it doesn't get much better than KAV, and as far as an anti-virus software detecting trojans, KAV is also about as good as it gets, but the guys at KAV don't focus on trojans - it's just one of many dozens of problems they deal with, so they can't spend too much time with trojans, but we can and have done for the last half-decade (since remote access trojans reared their head for the very first time) - trojans are pretty much all we do, so it is not surprising that we have literally thousands of trojan variants now that KAV does not detect, many of which we don't think KAV will ever detect as they're not easily available on the web anymore. It's an excellent AV but when you've seen it miss as many trojans as we have you begin to lose faith in it fairly quickly when it comes to trojans. I'm not speaking here as somebody who is speculating, but as somebody who has access to one of the worlds largest collections of remote access trojans and has been able to physically see how many KAV can detect. Looking at their database with Senna's AV database analysis program shows that KAV detects a lot of trojans (especially compared to other AVs) but not nearly as many as TDS.

Regards,
Wayne

 

>As far as virus detection goes it doesn't get much better than KAV, and as far as an
>anti-virus software detecting trojans, KAV is also about as good as it gets, but the guys
>at KAV don't focus on trojans - it's just one of many dozens of problems they deal with,
>so they can't spend too much time with trojans, but we can and have done for the last
>half-decade (since remote access trojans reared their head for the very first time) -

As far as i remember they have 3 employees managing runtime packer and crypter and 2 for backdoor detection. You have?

>trojans are pretty much all we do, so it is not surprising that we have literally thousands
>of trojan variants now that KAV does not detect, many of which we don't think KAV will
>ever detect as they're not easily available on the web anymore.

Well ... and i guess kav detects thousands of trojans tds does not ... . By the way ... do you have any proofments for this statement? Log files or something like this. Would be interesting.

> many of which we don't think KAV will
> ever detect as they're not easily available on the web anymore.

Well ... if they are not available how can a script kiddie or anyone else use them? So detection of them is redundant in the same way as the detection of labour viruses.

>I'm not speaking here as somebody who is speculating, but as somebody who has
>access to one of the worlds largest collections of remote access trojans and has been
>able to physically see how many KAV can detect.

Let us take part on your experience. Show us some log files or screenshoots .

 

Start coding and make a better one.

a²

 

already started ... don't hurry .

 

Just a small point here in that the KAV Lite costs $20 and gives the same detection rate as the personal and professional KAV (with 10% discount making it $18 for renewal the following year)

 

This may help answer your question:
http://users.boardnation.com/~mickeytheman/showthread.php?t=403
(link provided in the interest of bandwidth, rather than reprinting the whole thing here)


Repaired link

 

Thanks, Nancy for a very informative linked reply. It adds real weight to the "layered" approach argument.