Testing methodologies concerning scan engines

not always, it was a time nod was best, but I made several tests and the most effective scan engine is in my opinion actually Bit Defender then comes nod.
And the rest is far away from both, except dr.web if it wouldn´t have so much false positives.
[We are talking about stand alone scan engines, otherwise GData would stay at the top of position.]

Oh I forgot one newcomer: AntiVir reached top 5 in my last test. Really enhanced, except the guard, that has problems with false positives and syscrashes.

In above poll Nod is best, thats logical, kaspersky is far away from nod, pro´s don´t talk about symantec, they only have money but lacks of scan power.

 

Re: NOD32 2.7 Vs Symantec AV Corp 10 Vs Kaspersky 6

Would be interesting to know your testing methodologies.

 

Re: NOD32 2.7 Vs Symantec AV Corp 10 Vs Kaspersky 6

Usual unpacked malware, crypted, packed, crypted and packed malware, special stealthed to test scan power.

Nods advanced heuristic is easier to circumvent then kaspersky, bit defender actually one of the strongest, maybe the strongest and deepest heuristic available, but we should not forget Antivir which made big steps.

 

Re: NOD32 2.7 Vs Symantec AV Corp 10 Vs Kaspersky 6

Are you saying that the unpacking engine of NOD 32 is actually weak?
What about VBA32, Norman Sandbox, F-Prot 6?

 

Re: NOD32 2.7 Vs Symantec AV Corp 10 Vs Kaspersky 6

Gimme a proof, this is simply nonsense.

 

Re: NOD32 2.7 Vs Symantec AV Corp 10 Vs Kaspersky 6

I guess they are more weak, but did not test them all, F-Prot is not that good, VBA don´t know, Norman was alltime weak scanner, but don´t know actual capabilities.

No, nonsense, you just have to know the method,
I would not say that if it weren´t so, maybe it is not always the case but in my testfield it is so.

If I would show the proof you would directly adapt your tool, the only one who would take profit were eset so why should I do that?

If no one would make money with it I would tell you everything I know.
But the problem of capitalism is that we have some winner and some loser.

That is far away from fairness thus far away from what our originator wanted.

 

You are gotta be kidding me? Right?


tD

 

Hello,
Junkie, I think you have made some pretty bold statements. Care to put them to a reality test?
Mrk

 

Just the statements alone, have no validity. Anyone who comes here knows the real answers and stengths of these vendors. Bit while good, is still not as good as several mentioned. That may hold true in your thoughts, or forum. (BitD)

 

Ahhh...the laughing stock of all places - explains it all. An amateur, guilty of spamming fairly all boards on the web, even kicking IBK from www.av-comparatives.org out...

As sad for SOFTWIN/BitDefender getting that much amateurish and bad publicity. They do deserve better...

 

erm...

if your talking of unpacking, drweb is the best at this, even better than the top-detection rate companys.

we just have to work just a bit on detection, and a bit on false positives and no doubt it could be a A+ av.

 

Re: NOD32 2.7 Vs Symantec AV Corp 10 Vs Kaspersky 6

Some people just think stupid things,others actually put them down for others to read!

 

In my tests dr.web was always into the top 5 of best avs, but they still have some lacks as I mentioned and you stated. I could tell you atleast 3 packers dr web don´t know, but bit defender / kav knows, so be careful what you tell.

In terms of finding bodyless viruses dr.web might be the best actually.

 

Hello,
Please elaborate.
What is your testing regime? What do you do? How do you test? What is the test machine? What is the malware sample group? And so forth.
Mrk

 

ha, all avs aint perfect and i could easily find more than 3 that dr.web and others find that kaspersky or bitdefender do not, also i know bitdefender isnt kown for FP's, in my own testing.. id dissagree with that that, although i do agree its still a great av.

and this is concerning engines, not detection.... dr.webs detection might not be as good as your kasperskys etc, but the engine for unpackers is certain up there, and in my opinion top dog for it.

 

Yep, that is the 60 million dollar question.

 

well i have some bitdefender and kaspersky misses with packed malware, but dont know where to send them too,

bitdefender especially missed reminants of mydoom which is not good, as did clam, etrust and microsoft, but i cant be bothered sending to all, but bitdefender i will as its a decent company, any link?

also there are more with bitdefender, im a bit suprised as my own testing doesnt really match with bitdefenders high standard, heres just one e.g i know i aint allowed to post the results, but can i link it just to give one example?

http://www.virustotal.com/vt/en/resultadof?be6354fd415c431c81d9de7ef75707e3

i'll send a couple to bitdefender if someone knows a link, as i do like them.

 

Post #7 HERE
virus_submission[AT]bitdefender.com
newvirus[AT]kaspersky.com

Londonbeat

 

ta very much

sent them,

i had problems with dr.web blocking the outgoing mail, but unticking scan archives in email sorted the problem.
See here

 

LOL! That makes you the perfect Antivirus Troll! Can u explain to me in technical detail how a Guard (The Filesystem Monitor itself) can have/produce false postives?

 

I think he means that in the normal process of spider guard cheking files opened, that it detected what it thought to be malware that turned out to be a FP. Could be wrong though.

 

When are you going to update your blog?

 

Show it to Marcos and if this is true we will donate you a licence of any antivirus software you want

 

EVEN BIT DEFENDER
I think you are safe.

Jerry

 

Send all undetected samples to support@bitdefender.com with some detailed info.

I suppose this statement was made based simply on packing, crypting, repacking and all that stuff?