Are ITW results the most important?

A number of AV programs are now achieving 100% pass rates in ITW virus detection.

For the average PC user, FOR VIRUS DETECTION ONLY, is this category the most important?

Is he/she as well protected in using an AV which scores regularly 100% ITW detection but misses lots of other viruses in other categories e.g. zoo, macro, polymorphic, standard?

Should we take any notice of the failure of an AV product to detect viruses if they are not in the wild?

 

The problem is that too many people overestimate the results of VirusBulettin. The main reason for this is that nearly nobody is a subscriber of the magazine and without reading the article next to the results website you'll never get the right picture of a product.

As it is mentioned on the VB Website, it is just one indication that could help to identify a good av program. For example I use KAV for years now and I never had the feeling of being "less protected" because it failed several VB tests.

Overall most av programs score at the moment 100% because most ITW malware is so simple that a detection can be done in seconds. But when it comes to more complex malware you will definitly see the difference. I remember the Magistr. worm a few years ago: It took many products up to two weeks before they could offer a working protection.

wizar

 

Hi Wizard

Thanks for the reply.

But maybe I was not clear enough in my first post.

Would an AV product offer less overall virus protection if it missed a lot of NON-ITW VIRUSES, but detected ALL ITW viruses?

I have also been a registered AVP/KAV user for over 5 years now and same as you I am not bothered by it missing some Virus Bulletin awards.