Ikarus becoming No 1 detection engine ?

in the last months the ikarus engine is constantly the most efficient in detection as seen on shadow server http://www.shadowserver.org/wiki/pmwiki.php/Stats/Virus60-DayStats
for being a rather small austrian company i think they r doing a pretty good job.

 

I agree BUT: Don't forget that you will get a lot of FP with Ikarus engine

 

They have done a great job indeed. Some will talk about a higher number of false positives in comparison to other engines. In any case I support Ikarus and the choice of Emsisoft to use their engine.

 

You obviously can't trust "Shadowserver" statistics. Look at G Data for example - always below 10%, sometimes, 1-2% detection rate. This is not the case. So why should the other numbers be correct.

 

True, but A2/Ikarus shows predominance at elsewhere too.

 

though im not a great fun of the various testing organizations, virus bulletin also ranks ikarus among the best : http://www.virusbtn.com/vb100/rap-index.xml

i believe that in the near future we ll be listening alot about ikarus

 

Ikaraus is under my review list...You guys will soon gonna read a review on it...

Right now me suffering from fever...So no updates on anything

 

Get well soon!

 

Trying to recover without AV's, BB, HIPS and all...Its a heat-stroke

BTW Vexira is above GDATA and BitDefender...What a joke

 

I'm not sure, but maybe these virus are new and they are trying the engine, not the signature database.

Maybe this is a representation of the effectiveness of the engine.

Probably these results change in hours or a day, because they are added quickly by the AV companies.

There should be a study to see which AV's add virus signatures quicker...

I'm not sure if I explained myself well.

 

Vexira..!! You mean this? Is it good? Last time I tried it it was not compatible with Vista. Which engine it uses?

I understand you very well. That's a very important point. Quickness in adding signature after being reported. But there is a downside in this tests. This will vary with the frequency of release of new malwares.

In my personal view Dr.Web and Rising are quick in that respect. Unbelievable huh!! May be their detection is lagging due a lack of users and connections. After them Avast, Bitdefender, Avira, Emsisoft. Kaspersky is not that quick. I can't tell about others.

 

This has been discussed before. Again, this data is not accurate at all. Just look at GData. 8.70%? Just no.

 

Supported Operating Systems
Microsoft® Windows 98 Second Edition
Microsoft® Windows Me
Microsoft® Windows NT 4.0 Workstation with Service Pack 3 or above
Microsoft® Windows 2000 Professional
Microsoft® Windows XP Home and Professional
Microsoft® Windows Vista (all editions)
Microsoft® Windows Windows 7 (all editions)

And if you ask me then i will suggest you to stay away from it...

 

Thanks for posting the link. I wonder why they are using Linux versions for the majority of the scanners and what impact that has on the results for those of us using Windows?

All of their software was donated and they are sharing missed binaries with the vendors, so there must be someone from each of these companies that thinks the tests are relevant.

 

Installed Ikarus; first time I have had a look at it in nearly 2 years. Picked up Norton’s tool as an AV!

“Fast” scan was not particularly fast; probably on par with Kaspersky, AntiVir on this machine. At least there were no false positives picked up.

 

Felt very light in real-time; must have good caching.

 

Picked up all of the malware I exposed it to, but it was a very small sample size. In addition, there have been reports in the past that Ikarus carries out very few sample analyses themselves but appear to add signatures if they are detected by another vendor.

Overall, they may have a good detection rate but IMHO, particularly on cost grounds there are much better AV alternatives. 40 Euros for a standalone AV package seems to be a very steep price to pay!

 

I would also take Shadowserver's results with a pinch of salt; honeypots are known for their corrupted files and there is no testing for functionality.

However, Ikarus scores well on a variety of sites and purely on detection abilities it would be a good choice for an AV.

 

Thanks for the review BlackCat.
For few false positive detections, it is the only one in VT logs that detect that. So, this

may not be true anymore

@AvinashR: I have already tested that a year back. Not impressive at all...

 

Thats why you buy it with Emsisoft 5 or OA++. Both of those employ the Ikarus AV engine.

 

great software ... as I noted in the use of 6 months had no FP...I hope that soon anti-spam engine...and the new AV engine ....

 

No need to review this . It has been reviewed many times over . Consistantly good . False Positives have really been reduced over the years .