AV-comparatives August2005 results released

Anti-Virus comparative of August 2005 is now released on www.av-comparatives.org

Please note that it is NOT allowed to provide the results/tables/documents on other sites or to put links to subpages. Please always link only to www.av-comparatives.org


I suggest to read the whole site and related documents/reports if you do not have already. Questions you may have are probably already answered in some documents.

I will visit various forums and maybe sometimes comment a bit. Today I will probably be mainly at the av-comparatives forum, the wilders forum and the rokop forum (german). Feel free to spread the word about the release of the August test results (I will post it probably only in the 3 mentioned forums).

For peoples from China that are not able to reach the orginal site, go to: http://www.itz.cc/ac

 

Thanks you IBK, amazing result by Symantec they really seem to work hard on their detection (signatures). BitDefender kinda dissapointed me, I thought they would have end up higher.

 

Great!

Off I go to take a look...

Thanks

Ned

 

Wow, I am surprised KAV got so many of the samples, but what really surprised me was Symantec's performance. Thanks for the food for thought.

 

Yes, KAVs performance is remarkable.

NOD32 also looks like it's right up there with the very best now in terms of detection.

Ned

 

Interesting stuff, thank you, IBK.

Acadia

 

Did this test include the buffer test, something like test of false positive or samples file with at least one antivirus scanner give false positive.......

 

A dedicated false positive test-set and results will be ready next year.

 

Interesting again to see how many products are let down by their poor detection rates of trojans relative to other malware classes.

It would be interesting to see how dedicated trojan scanners (eg, a-squared, ewido etc) perform against the trojan subset. Any chance you could do such a test as a one off?

Ned

 

KAV is truly phenomenal. Thanks for posting the results.

Rich

 

no, sorry, you will find the reasons in the faq i think. maybe i posted in past here on wilders (or av-comparatives or rokop; do not remember) some unofficial results of ATs, maybe u find them if you search.

 

Perhaps I need some more coffee, but I think there may be an error in the color coded graph in the report. The line for bitdefender does not seem to match the percentage results.

 

of course not. that graph shows the added samples since last test (test-set of february), not of the actual test-set.

 

Thanks - didn't realise you'd already done some unofficial testing. I'll do a search and see if I can find it.

Thanks again,

Ned

EDIT: I assume this is the post you were refering to over at AV-Comparatives:

http://www.av-comparatives.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=171

 

Nothing surprising with either of these products. Just check out their history!

 

@nedslider: yes, i think it was that one.

 

Thank you Sir

 

Just an observation...let's say av-A scores 99% and av-B 98% than that still doesn't say what they missed. Could be av-A missed for the most part high geographic distribution threats and av-B for the most part low geographic distribution threats and therefor av-B could be much better irl when taken into account the geographical distribution and therefor the results, when the differences are small in percentage (don't know the exact margin of course), could be misleading.

 

I often think about the geographic factor in AV tests, and it seems to be one of those unkowns.

I have been following them, and 99% of the testbed is an extremely high number.

 

AntiVir did very well for a free AV. And if we uses av-comparatives as a guide NOD32 currently looks unbeatable.

Anyway, so far Antivir serves me well enough.

 

Disappointed to see that Sophos only got 89.12% even with the new version 5.0.5~~

And, only F-PROT, KAV and McAfee got 100% in the macro virus test~~

 

DrWeb

Best regards,
Firefighter!

 

Don't cry, Firefighter. It's still a good AV and 4.33 is on the horizon.

 

If you look at the Report file of these tests, particularly the present one, the rate that Dr Web is adding "missed" samples to their database is seemingly well behind the other vendors.

Maybe this small company needs to hire more analysts?

Whereas Bitdefender and NOD, who are starting at the same origin as Dr Web, show much steeper rates in the detection of missed samples which coincided with their recent big updates before the present test.

Who would have thought 1-2 years ago that NOD and Norton would beat McAfee and Dr Web in trojan/backdoor detection!!

But don't worry, FF, IMO, Dr Web is still one of the best AV's

 

No test would convince me to replace Dr.Web on the majority of machines here. They require light and transparent AV's that have zero system drag, and it fits the bill nicely. Well, I might consider VBA32 since they added Dr.Web-Like settings for new files only.