New Malware-Test results

well, if the test was correct, it shouldn't make any difference, the signatures are the same through all the v6 line.

 

You can see the pattern file is the same, the only difference is product version....

 

As I don't trust other testing organizations....because I cannot verify their test results.

 

Don't be subjective. Please point out the problem you mentioned.

 

I don't know what to say,I think it's a very“special” result.

 

Do you have some affiliation with this test?

 

IIRC NODs Advanced Heuristics are off by default for on-demand scans.. Since the document states they've used default settings for heuristics, I guess it remained off. If that's the case, NODs results are quite accurate for that setting. I think things would look different if they were switched on.
Avira's heuristics are on medium by default, I guess there'd be quite a difference with high as well. Not sure about the other tested AVs default settings....

 

No , I won't ask Kaspersky when the answer is so obvious - the problem is not in Kaspersky but in the testers . Even if KAV was version 4.5 the results must be the same as AOL AVS if both are updated at the same time and with the best possible settings.

The on-demand scan results does not vary because of the engine versions at least for these products from 4.5 to v6 . Since AVS is KAV6 based product - the best possible settings are equal for both products . I see they say they used default settings , so default settings should be the same for both

 

just because their packers support is weak. Maybe in addition to corrupted samples there were also unsupported packers.

 

totally rubbish,

drweb - Application Error

and it has been in most of their tests



there is no program bars on removal, you just have to wait till its done removing, obviously if there is 200000 viruses, this could take a while, so just leave it grrrr and lets see the result.

 

Well, I will say that the results are indeed somewhat strange and inconsistent with what we've been seeing from AV-test or AV-comparatives, for example.

For example, the report mentions that the malware files were collected from honeypot, but it does NOT mention how they were collected, and how the files were sorted and whether there were any corrupted files and what methods (if any) were used to clear these corrupted files from the sample set.

I do have a few comments about this test.....From the PDF file:

Your test machine seems to be a good configuration

This could be one reason why we are seeing such strange things with Malware-Test compared to other tests like AV-test, AV-comparatives or even VirusP's tests. All those 3 have the AVs set to max settings and max heuristics, I think Malware-Test should also do the same. Of course, even that would probably not explain some of the strange results in this test.

Since some details are still missing (see above), it is difficult for people to make a positive conclusion just yet. Perhaps if you could elaborate further on the testing method and process, maybe things will become clear?

No, the screenshot suggests they were using the same signatures.

Maybe the difference is due to different default settings? If I remember correctly AOL AVS also lacks the ability to quarantine. So if KAV 6 was set to quarantine infected files while AVS was set to simply delete, then it can explain how AVS scores better. Because sometimes a few files cannot be properly quarantined (don't ask me why, but I have seen it happen for example in BitDefender). If the detections were counted based on number of files remaining in a folder after the AV has detected and quarantined (or deleted) everything it gets, then there might be more files left in the folder after KAV's scan than after AVS' scan because KAV may not have been able to quarantine some of the files while deleting works in most cases except when the file is locked.

Just a theory though.

ZoneAlarm and F-Secure may score higher than KAV due to the addition of extra engines (ZA's own antispyware engine works on-demand along with KAV engine and F-Secure as you know has multiple engines). However it is also possible that this "quarantine/delete" thing might be affecting other AVs also (hence possibly artificially lowering scores). At this point I have no way to know for sure.

I think so. If I am correct, RogerC is Roger Chiu, founder of Malware-Test lab.

 

Counting by deleted files would be stupid //I'm not saying they do it that way though!) since most AVs don't allow deletion of heuristic detections / suspicious files. If they did delete them, they'd fail every VB test.

 

The test is either rubbish or biased (or both). My computer (Nod32) flagged more than 70 nasties coming from computers ALL running Ahnlab V3 (it's all documented if you check my threads).

Unfortunately anybody can post anything on the internet with a legitimate facade.

 

Another av-comparatives wannabe I say

 

Of course....Most antivirus softwares' setting is report only.

 

Don't be subjective, you can get user dump and dr.watson log from here.

 

You can try to test KAV and AOL, you will see product version is different...

 

that doesn't say anything, even if it is, the engine & signatures are the same through out the v5/v6 line. There are no build specific heuristics, signatures & stuff like that

 

Thanks for your suggestions, we hope we can improve documentation in the future and use other test methodologies to test antivirus softwares' total protection capabilities instead of using old test methodologies to test antivirus softwares for known viruses/spywares.

For settings, heuristic setting is medium (default, this is antivirus company's recommendation. If turnning it to high, it is very esay to cause false positive), the rest are max settings (report only when found a virus unless antivirus software has no this setting).

For AOL and KAV, the settings are the same, the only different is product version, we don't know why?

Finally, yes, I am Roger Chiu.

 

this test sucks, if you think drweb has "application error"

sort it, or keep your day job away from my eyes

 

It is great to see ClamAV at a near 75% detection rate, but I know something is fishy when 1+% separates Kaspersky and ClamAV......