Antivirus Comparisons and tests.Great info!

I got this from another forum, u can download this PDF file its an actually great read.

In this month Computer Shopper the leading anti virus's were put to the test with Frighting results. It makes interesting reading but to cut a long story short the best are Steganos Anti Virus 2007, Kaspersky Lab Anti Virus 6 and AVG Anti Virus because it's free

http://anonym.to/?http://rapidshare.com/files/15722990/Binder1.pdf.html

i just got done reading it all NOD and KAV were the best as usuall but Avast was last can anyone tell me if these test are any good? I wish i KNEW how to post the pictures instead of this PDF file that has the pictures and story.

OPINIONS PLEASE ARE THESE TESTS LEGIT?
http://img21.imagevenue.com/loc255/th_47436_anti_virus0001_122_255lo.jpg

 

but steganos av 2007=kav 6. it's the same product just tha tsteganos made it "bluer"

 

anyone read it

 

The sample size of the test is very small. I would place more weight with the Av-comparatives tests. There is one coming out the beginning of March.
All the AVs tested by Av-comparatives are good products. Pick one that suits your personal preference and spend time learning all about it.

 

Where is it then? Selling a review?

 

What do you mean by that> i just posted this to contribute to the board.?

 

I have a question. Why does it say "April 2007" at the end of the article?

 

okiedokie.

Thanks!

 

Personally I'm not to keep on this review, they used just a few samples (251 'viruses' + 183 'malware) and who knows how proper this samples were anyway.

But thanks for sharing of course!

 

Here are the ratings:

 

Guess i'll be dropping Avast and getting NOD32

 

dont drop an AV based on one test
its like buying a new car because the car in the test of say e.g. three cars and your car has e.g. 5mpg less=D
lodore

 

nice one!

 

Do what you want but that test is junk........

 

Do not make judgements on this phony test. It is the biggest load of bs I have ever seen. Getting NOD is a good call though. it is very light on resources, strong detection rate, and strong heuristics.

 

Seriously it is. They used 251 samples for their email test and 183 for the spyware/malware test. You can't gage overall detection with a test set that small.

 

Avast has been a proven performer for years.

I admit that I believe that NOD is clearly superior, but I would not ditch Avast if I had been happy with it before this "test." In my opinion Avast gives adequate protection for anyone not a "dangerous surfer." I have used it at various times without problems.

No AV will keep one free from infection if he is careless.
Jerry

 

It's too small a sample to judge anything by.

 

More than the number of samples, I doubt the quality of samples they've used....

 

The test set is by far too small to base any judgement on it. I think both Andreas Marx (AV-Test) and IBK (AV-Comparatives) use alot more than 1.000.000 files by now.

Heck, the "quick" reference test set I use to check my heuristic/generic detection rate is about 120.000 samples.

 

I totally agree

 

I found a comment in relation to this by the tester(s):

http://www.pcpro.co.uk/shopper/labs/230/anti-virus-software/introduction.html

Personally I think the test is BS, but this crap is being spread around to many people right now....

 

Perhaps more significant is the age of the samples. If someone runs a test using the most recent malware discovered, then there is a greater chance that the AV software does not have a signature for it. In such a case, the test is more biased towards how quickly AV companies detect and add new malware (plus the scanner's heuristic abilities) than the more established tests with larger samples would be.

Given the increasing attempts by malware writers to avoid detection (both by morphing their code in various ways and also targeting it at smaller groups to reduce the chance of AV companies picking it up), such attributes are likely to become more important in future, but should really be tested for separately.

 

I rather agree with this hypothesis.

For example, avast! is well known by its users for a very slow adding malware sample process, so avast! didn't perform any good in such test should tell something...

 

I hope no one in their right mind puts any validity to this test.