VirusInfo January 2009 comparative

Take a look here:

http://virusinfo.info/index.php?page=testseng


Microsoft outperformed NOD32, Kaspersky and Symantec in signature/generic based detections, keep up the good work.

 

https://www.wilderssecurity.com/showpost.php?p=1349124&postcount=7

 

okies....

 

That's crazy, of course ... VirusTotal still using Kaspersky 7.0.0.125 7.0.0.125 is quite obsolete and soon maybe Kaspersky is going to finish the support to 7.x line, besides I think K. HEUR there, is not totally inplemented ...

http://www.prevx.com/blog/106/Why-using-VirusTotal-for-AV-testing-is-a-bad-idea.html

Regards.

 

lol microsoft? can u say someones been payed off?

 

From what I've seen when uploading samples in VT, Microsoft doesnt do too bad with detections, especially with fairly new malware/0-days... see quiet a few .gen!# detections from it.

 

IBK and others explained it several times very clear: using Virustotal to compare detection rates is wrong. So this (new) Virusinfo test isn't reliable at all.

<S>

 

ye ur statement is pretty obvious just by looking at the test results...

 

"b) heuristic detection (detecting yet unknown malware by the method of emulation / code analysis / etc. Examples: "Heur.Trojan.Generic"; "a variant of: XXXXX") "

Can't you also heruistically match an mutated sample of malware to an existing signature? Does it have to be something like "Suspicious.AH.65" or "heru.gen"?

As for MS, it does great when it comes to rouges on VT.

But then, VT uses Symantec Corporate 10.x. Already superseeded by 11.

 

Sure, generic signatures are heuristic detection too

 

Sunbelt (VIPRE or Counterspy ) doesn't seem to be doing well.

I wonder what exactly they have tested. I was actually considering moving to VIPRE. Currently on McAfee, VIPRE doesn't compare favorably to that.
Of course, these tests have their limitations. I didn't read the specifics.

 

http://sunbeltblog.blogspot.com/2009/01/bit-of-vipre-roadmap.html

 

How often each ind. virus scanner on VT is updated? Does each AV just update itself on its own accord, or are they all updated at a set time?

 

Totally not reliable test.

 

Every few hours normally - http://www.virustotal.com/estadisticas.html (scroll down to "Recent updates")

 

That pretty much sums it up.

 

Not really, but it still gives us a good idea of how things are. Many installed products produce identical results to their counterparts installed on VT, and for those that don't, the difference is often minor. The test isn't accurate to the last decimal, if you want to get picky about that, but that doesn't mean it's not an acceptably decent approximate.

 

Have you seen how well MS performs on Renos/FakeAlert variants lately?

Have you anything useful to contribute other than the same tired old anti-MS rhetoric?

 

Yep. Just got a "renos" detection yesterday. And at least 5 other times in the past weeks.

MS is getting better; I even use their OneCare online scan to remove malware.

Ha, and VT even considers a "Error scanning file" message or a "password-protected achieve" from Kaspersky as infected. Not very sophisticated.

And VT also has a graph showing "failures in detection". I don't think that is very accurate.

 

Depends on how acceptable acceptable is
I personally dont take much notice of this one...
1. VT IMO isnt an accurate approximation of detection abilities (at least not accurate enough for my likeing)
2. Malware sample collection method is flawed (read into the methodology and come to your own conclusions regarding that)

 

What version of Norton are they using? And why are they using PrevX 1?

 

I don't believe in these crappy tests, but I wanted to say that Microsoft have been doing brilliantly well lately, better than Network Associates and Symantec.

 

This is starting to get boring. It has been said many times that comparatives based on VT are not accurate enough, and you keep posting them again and again. It is a complete waste of time, and reading this threads keeps bringing me a deja-vù sensation.