Who is fastest for adding detection?

Discussion in 'other anti-virus software' started by Durad, Sep 19, 2008.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. splicer707

    splicer707 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2008
    Posts:
    26
    From my experience I would say Avira is the quickest, with Kaspersky second.
     
  2. Livio

    Livio Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2008
    Posts:
    20
    I would second that.
     
  3. rainbow1112

    rainbow1112 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2007
    Posts:
    78
    Something shocking... I Submit 6 possible virus sample to many anti-virus company and only Annlab and mcafee reply within 1 hours Annlab analyze my 2 sample and email me that it was added to database but i have not receive anything about the other 4 sample...

    Mcafee reply within 2 hours... and 4 sample will added another 2 sample they have not reply.
     
  4. Livio

    Livio Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2008
    Posts:
    20
    I suppose they may only reply about samples they do not already have in their database.
     
  5. gates

    gates Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2005
    Posts:
    59
    I don't know who is fastest, but I know that if I have virus problem dr.web will add samples really fast.

    One support ticket and problem is gone :D
     
  6. Medank

    Medank Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2008
    Posts:
    102
    For my experience i would say Avira and Kaspersky,
    and the worse that sometimes i don't even got respond in a week from them it is avast, Bitdefender, Norman,
    i have tested this :)
     
  7. wildvirus88

    wildvirus88 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2004
    Posts:
    331
    I sent the sample with detection below to Trendmicro, Panda and DrWeb 2 days ago.

    ~ VirusTotal link removed per policy - snap ~

    Actually the detection is exactly the same and I received no reply from the three companies yet. Only an automatic reply from Dr.Web but no individual reply about the sample and they didn't add to database yet.

    I got the malware when I used my pendrive in the university (Trendmicro in all computers in the network). When I came home... surprise! F-Secure detected the malware.
    The malware is detected since march 2008 by most all AVs (previous detection of VT).
    Probably the companies received the malware months ago but didn't add to database.

    Incompetence, again.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 27, 2008
  8. wildvirus88

    wildvirus88 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2004
    Posts:
    331
    Something more...

    I found it in Panda Security website:

    "According to Av.Test.org, PandaLabs is currently the fastest laboratory in the industry in providing complete updates to users. More information is available in the PandaLabs blog."

    The page:
    http://www.pandasecurity.com/homeusers/media/press-releases/viewnews?noticia=8945

    I never listened something about Panda be so fast.

    What's the test they are talking about?

    Or are they lying one more time?

    Best regards.
     
  9. MalwareDie

    MalwareDie Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2006
    Posts:
    500
    Panda is a crappy company. Not surprised at all at it making such a bogus claim.
     
  10. Badcompany

    Badcompany Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2005
    Posts:
    757
    Location:
    RUNCORN UK.
    Has anyone sent samples to Filseclab ( Twister AV.) I'm sure this vendor would be very fast adding samples.
    Badcompany.
     
  11. GES/POR

    GES/POR Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2006
    Posts:
    1,490
    Location:
    Armacham
    Y is it a crappy company?
     
  12. MalwareDie

    MalwareDie Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2006
    Posts:
    500
    Its detection rates suck. I've seen people that go on wilders complain about it and it is also quite unprofessional.
     
  13. BrendanK.

    BrendanK. Guest

    Didn't they protect the Government of China at one stage?
     
  14. Sm3K3R

    Sm3K3R Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 29, 2008
    Posts:
    611
    Location:
    Wallachia
    Detection speed is extremely usefull for antiviruses like Avira and KAV with a no proactivity.NOD 32,BitDefender & Panda have revealed in antivirus tests good proactivity so who cares if the definition is added after one hour or one day.
     
  15. emperordarius

    emperordarius Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2008
    Posts:
    1,218
    Location:
    Who cares
    Avira has only heuristic detection, that's true.
    However, Kaspersky has both Heuristic AND Proactive Protection(PDM+HIPS).
    Additionally, since you're counting NOD32's HEURISTIC detection as PROACTIVE, you can't say that Avira or Kaspersky don't have proactive protection.
     
    Last edited: Sep 28, 2008
  16. Fajo

    Fajo Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2008
    Posts:
    1,814

    Yet Avira still kills it in detection.. makes you start to wonder what the "buzz words" really are.
     
  17. lodore

    lodore Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2006
    Posts:
    9,065
    i really dont like avira fan boys.
     
  18. Medank

    Medank Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2008
    Posts:
    102

    how come you don't like avira fan boys? :D
    not that i am one of them but still i am curious ::p ?`
     
  19. lodore

    lodore Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2006
    Posts:
    9,065
    they think avira can detect everything everyday and think is better than anything else.
    and also talk about avira in discusstions completely unrelated to it

    i always go on personal experience of a product over a long period of time.
     
  20. emperordarius

    emperordarius Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2008
    Posts:
    1,218
    Location:
    Who cares
    The only thing that Avira has more than kaspersky are false positives.
     
  21. risl

    risl Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2006
    Posts:
    581
    But wait, there are test results :D
     
  22. C.S.J

    C.S.J Massive Poster

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2006
    Posts:
    5,029
    Location:
    this forum is biased!
    labelling a false positive, and then not removing it from the database is just plain wrong, regardless of whatever excuses they can think of. :blink:
     
  23. AliliPrince

    AliliPrince Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2008
    Posts:
    3
    Kaspersky and Bitdefender
     
  24. Fajo

    Fajo Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2008
    Posts:
    1,814
    Please think before you speak. Last test kaspersky was almost double the FP's then Avira. and again Avira still kills it at detection.. get over it lol. quit being bias test results don't show your finding's. in the least.


    As for detections. it's a hacktool.


    I'm far from a fanboy. If there detections drop I'm gone, I have no loyalty to Avira. So your sentence makes no sense, also Avira is far from the only AV I use.


    Edit.

    As for above. Sorry I read the sentences from my last post wrong. shoot me 48 hours no sleep you start adding words also. :eek:

    So sorry for starting this little feud it was not intended. :(
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 28, 2008
  25. mvdu

    mvdu Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2003
    Posts:
    1,166
    Location:
    PA
    One test does not definitely mean Kaspersky has more false positives, though. Personally, I have seen more with AntiVir, though not as many very recently.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.