Antivirus Comparisons and tests.Great info!

Discussion in 'other anti-virus software' started by legendary, Feb 16, 2007.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. legendary

    legendary Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2007
    Posts:
    62
    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 lasto_O 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
     
    Last edited: Feb 16, 2007
  2. plantextract

    plantextract Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2007
    Posts:
    392
    but steganos av 2007=kav 6. it's the same product just tha tsteganos made it "bluer" :)
     
  3. legendary

    legendary Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2007
    Posts:
    62
    anyone read ito_O
     
  4. Thankful

    Thankful Savings Monitor

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2005
    Posts:
    3,741
    Location:
    New York City
    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.
     
  5. egghead

    egghead Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2005
    Posts:
    443
    Location:
    The Netherlands
  6. legendary

    legendary Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2007
    Posts:
    62

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

    solcroft Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2006
    Posts:
    1,639
    I have a question. Why does it say "April 2007" at the end of the article?
     
  8. egghead

    egghead Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2005
    Posts:
    443
    Location:
    The Netherlands
    okiedokie.

    Thanks!;)
     
  9. Sputnik

    Sputnik Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2005
    Posts:
    1,198
    Location:
    Москва
    Personally I'm not to keep on this review, they used just a few samples (251 'viruses' + 183 'malware) :doubt: and who knows how proper this samples were anyway.

    But thanks for sharing of course!
     
  10. dah145

    dah145 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2006
    Posts:
    262
    Location:
    n/a
    Here are the ratings:
     

    Attached Files:

  11. legendary

    legendary Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2007
    Posts:
    62
    Guess i'll be dropping Avast and getting NOD32
     
  12. lodore

    lodore Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2006
    Posts:
    9,006
    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
     
  13. vhick

    vhick Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2006
    Posts:
    224
    Location:
    Noypi.........


    nice one!;)
     
  14. FastGame

    FastGame Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2005
    Posts:
    677
    Location:
    Blasters worm farm
    Do what you want but that test is junk........
     
  15. MalwareDie

    MalwareDie Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2006
    Posts:
    500
    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.
     
  16. hbkh

    hbkh Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2004
    Posts:
    128
    Location:
    Ohio, USA
    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.
     
  17. JerryM

    JerryM Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2003
    Posts:
    4,221
    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
     
  18. TonyW

    TonyW Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2005
    Posts:
    2,635
    Location:
    UK
    It's too small a sample to judge anything by.
     
  19. Firecat

    Firecat Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2005
    Posts:
    7,927
    Location:
    The land of no identity :D
    More than the number of samples, I doubt the quality of samples they've used....
     
  20. Stefan Kurtzhals

    Stefan Kurtzhals AV Expert

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2003
    Posts:
    701
    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.
     
  21. EraserHW

    EraserHW Malware Expert

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2005
    Posts:
    588
    Location:
    Italy
    I totally agree
     
  22. Firecat

    Firecat Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2005
    Posts:
    7,927
    Location:
    The land of no identity :D
    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....
     
  23. Paranoid2000

    Paranoid2000 Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 2, 2004
    Posts:
    2,839
    Location:
    North West, United Kingdom
    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.
     
  24. TAP

    TAP Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2004
    Posts:
    344
    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...
     
  25. bigc73542

    bigc73542 Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2003
    Posts:
    23,873
    Location:
    SW. Oklahoma
    I hope no one in their right mind puts any validity to this test.:doubt:
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.