New Malware-Test results

New test results from Malware-test Lab are up after lots and lots of delays. More results expected soon because of delays caused for some scanners due to "exceptionally poor scan speed"...They were speaking about a revised methodology of testing for this latest test, but I haven't checked it out yet.

If anyone's interested, here you go:

http://www.malware-test.com/

Still reading the PDF now, will comment later.

 

Looks interesting, thanx

 

How can AOL AVS score more that Kaspersky ? Or anyone imagine Clam to be higher than Panda , NOD32 , BitDefender , Avast .

These are complete crap !

 

The result is weird too weird...

 

don't even ask

 

Please don't tell me that they determine the scan speed based on the virus test set

 

They obviously do. Hey, I like our scan speed.

 

So ridiculous...

 

well I think we should all remain, "objective" about this.

 

Wierd test. Scan speed?!

 

One of many observations.........

NOD32 pwned by Clam and eTrust?

Seriously, malware-test needs to stop publishing garbage and wasting everyones time.

 

honeypot = damaged malwares and the testing details are not published. It's not at all trustful.

 

Have you read test report (PDF file)? You can see KAV's product version (6.0.0.303) is lower than AOL (6.0.0.308 ), you can ask KAV why it causes different test result.

 

What detailed information?

 

Frik: "Hey -- DrWeb did rather well!"

Frak: "You're silly -- DrWeb isn't even on the list."

Frik: "That's exactly my point."

 

Well, dont really have to ask KAV... can ask someone here... maybe diffrent results because the AVs were updated at slightly diffrent times... looks like AOL-AVS was updated a little while after KAV was.

 

I cannot even read the pdf.

 

Load of bull if Fortinet is at or near the top.

 

Is that bad Fortinet? Latest av-comparatives test shows it at same level as F-Prot..

 

Fortinet has a very bad heuristic engine... very many FPs. And perhaps they managed to reach this level due to this thing.

 

nah, its correct that fortinet is at the top, because it flags everything and anything has a virus.

 

Given that all malware in this test was collected using honeypot, I think that there's a chance a fair amount of these files may be corrupted like you said above. I've read that Fortinet flags a lot of corrupted files as suspicious. A high number of corrupted files would also possibly explain why AV's such as NOD (emulation) scored lower than expected. I'm no AV expert so I could be wrong, plus we don't know what, if any, checks have been made to see how functional the test bed is.

Londonbeat

 

nod is a weird AV, ive always found its detection poor until ive tried to unzip or actually run the file, then it alerts me and deletes it.

either way it doesnt bother me, but ive always found nod32 weird that way.

 

This test is a total fake...
There are too much weird conclusions in it

 

I dont trust these results... but then again, tests such as this hardly display real-world performance characteristics. Considering both AVS and KIS were tested, and the versions of both are waaaaay behind what is currently available... I dont think much thought went into this.