Strange Results

Avira AntiVir used to be N°1 in Shadowserver results, but now...

 

I wonder how many people will now finally agree there is something wrong with shadowserver testing hmmmm

 

...and Here We have another BS test results.

 

Is it joke?

Give me, please, source site.

 

This is ridiculous. I still can't understand why people even spend time reading these crappy "tests" .
alloucho , find some other site to read when you have some spare time , please ...

 

http://www.shadowserver.org/wiki/pmwiki.php?n=Stats.VirusYearlyStats
These are the VirusYearlyStats, there are also daily, weekly, monthly...Stats.

 

OK Sir

 

purley for amusement for me.

 

The Gents over at ShadowServer need to get some more help, or do a better job monitoring the results if they plan on publishing these "results". It is really simple to monitor things like that automatically in the *nix world, as that is the environment I suggest they look into it. Just my .02

 

Just some error, same thing happened few days ago and they removed antivir from the list. Problems are back it seems.

 

It seems this time SS didn't receive its monthly payment from avira [j/k]

 

I think this was posted for comic relief maybe proves you don't need an AV or is that AV testers

 

@alloucho: It looks like error in the system just in time of your screen.

 

hehe..avira in the first place>>see the site ِagaine

 

Yes all is right now

 

It usually is- on this test and many others.

 

Sorry im lazy, but whats the difference between Avast & Avast Commercial

 

None at all...

 

Check this for more details.

 

My understanding is that they are changing/updating the scanners now and that Avira was not enabled for some time. If you don't scan you cannot detect anything. Probably other scanners will take a dump in the detection rate when they get updated.

 

Over several months it has become clear that the proponents of shadowserver are so careless in their work, and cavalier in their attitude, that their ratings have no credibility. Zero. Nada. Zilch.

 

That sounds about wright.

 

Maybe I'm just dead tired at the moment, but I fail to understand how they present the results in their tables.

The columns for each AV are detected, total, and percent.

Of course the percent is calculated by looking at how many pieces of malware was detected by that scanner, but my problem is: Why is there a huge difference in the total for each scanner??

Does this mean they are not scanning the same malware-collection with each scanner, and that the size of the collections are vastly diffent? If so, why on earth are they doing this. I mean, for the test to be fair and statistically correct they should scan the EXCACT same collection with every scanner!

Please enlighten me...

 

I have this same exact question when I saw this. Why is the total number of test samples varying between every program?

 

The only significant difference between the commercial and non-commericial versions appear to be the script blocking feature?

If so, then could that account for the huge detection difference between the two program versions? Does this mean that the free version has serious shortcomings?