Are Jotti's and VirusTotal reliable?

Discussion in 'other anti-virus software' started by Blutarsky, Nov 19, 2006.

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

    Blutarsky Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2006
    Posts:
    148
    What do you think?
     
  2. Londonbeat

    Londonbeat Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2006
    Posts:
    350
    Personally I find virustotal to be reliable, I've noticed once or twice before it doesn't detect things that the product does but generally it's good.
    I've found Jotti's quite frequently shows samples as undetected when they are actually detected by that product, jotti's runs on linux so this may be the reason.

    Londonbeat
     
  3. marcromero

    marcromero Guest

    I prefer VirusTotal over Jotti's, for the same reason stated above.
     
  4. ASpace

    ASpace Guest


    Me , too :thumb:
     
  5. lotuseclat79

    lotuseclat79 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2005
    Posts:
    5,097
    Both jotti and virustotal are reliable for what they purport to do:

    Jotti says on its webpage at: http://viruscan.jotti.org:
    Scanners used are Linux versions, differences with Windows scanners may or may not occur.

    whereas, it looks obvious that Virustotal uses Windows scanners from their webpage at: http://www.virustotal.com/en/indexf.html even though they do not state that they do.

    Therefore, if you use Linux/Unix OS use jotti, else if you use Windows use virustotal, or you can use both if you prefer.

    -- Tom
     
  6. Stefan Kurtzhals

    Stefan Kurtzhals AV Expert

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2003
    Posts:
    701
    The problem is not that Jotti is unreliable - the scan linux engines of those antivirus program don't have the same capabilities as the win32 versions.
     
  7. lucas1985

    lucas1985 Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2006
    Posts:
    4,047
    Location:
    France, May 1968
    I´m interested in this
    Do you mean heuristics for example?
    Thanks
     
  8. the Tester

    the Tester Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2002
    Posts:
    2,854
    Location:
    The Gateway to the Blue Hills,WI.
    I normally use VirusTotal.
     
  9. lotuseclat79

    lotuseclat79 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2005
    Posts:
    5,097
    Both the Linux and Windows scan engines have approximately the same capabilities, however, they are loaded to scan for different malware patterns depending on what infection is current for either focus of the scans - Windows vs Linux.

    -- Tom
     
  10. Blutarsky

    Blutarsky Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2006
    Posts:
    148
    Anyway they should be constantly updated, right?

    If you have a suspicious file and want to go beyond your installed AV you should trust those sources..... or not?
     
  11. Marcos

    Marcos Eset Staff Account

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2002
    Posts:
    14,374
    To my best knowledge, problems with Jotti's scanner stem from memory exhaustion. Sometimes you receive a correct result if you send the very same file twice.
     
  12. TairikuOkami

    TairikuOkami Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2005
    Posts:
    2,509
    Location:
    Slovakia
    When I was testing 0-day viruses, all scanners got them by heuristic, so I see no difference.
    I use Virus.Org, because it works without javascript, there is no wait line & it says AV version.
     
  13. EsoxLucius

    EsoxLucius Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2006
    Posts:
    125
    Location:
    Bucharest, Romania
    I hear for the first time about virus.org and scanned now the eicar test:

    Could that be the site-scanner or panda and ikarus ??

    I usually scan with Virustotal, but when I'm in a hurry I use jotti, which is a lot faster.

    Later Edit: I've scanned the eicar test again with virustotal and their pand and ikarus are detecting the file correctly.
     
  14. C.S.J

    C.S.J Massive Poster

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2006
    Posts:
    5,029
    Location:
    this forum is biased!
    i saw no problems on any AV with eicar, when going through virustotal ... maybe the one you tried it on is poor.

    AntiVir 7.2.0.39 11.20.2006 Eicar-Test-Signature
    Authentium 4.93.8 11.17.2006 EICAR_Test_File
    Avast 4.7.892.0 11.20.2006 EICAR Test-NOT virus!!
    AVG 386 11.20.2006 EICAR_Test
    BitDefender 7.2 11.20.2006 EICAR-Test-File (not a virus)
    CAT-QuickHeal 8.00 11.20.2006 EICAR Test File
    ClamAV devel-20060426 11.20.2006 Eicar-Test-Signature
    DrWeb 4.33 11.20.2006 EICAR Test File (NOT a Virus!)
    eSafe 7.0.14.0 11.20.2006 EICAR Test File
    eTrust-InoculateIT 23.73.59 11.18.2006 EICAR_test_file
    eTrust-Vet 30.3.3203 11.20.2006 the EICAR test string
    Ewido 4.0 11.20.2006 Not-A-Virus.Test.Eicar
    Fortinet 2.82.0.0 11.20.2006 EICAR_TEST_FILE
    F-Prot 3.16f 11.17.2006 EICAR_Test_File
    F-Prot4 4.2.1.29 11.17.2006 EICAR_Test_File
    Ikarus 0.2.65.0 11.20.2006 EICAR-ANTIVIRUS-TESTFILE
    Kaspersky 4.0.2.24 11.20.2006 EICAR-Test-File
    McAfee 4900 11.20.2006 EICAR test file
    Microsoft 1.1609 11.20.2006 EICAR_Test_File
    NOD32v2 1873 11.20.2006 Eicar test file
    Norman 5.80.02 11.20.2006 EICAR_Test_file_not_a_virus!
    Panda 9.0.0.4 11.20.2006 EICAR-AV-TEST-FILE
    Prevx1 V2 11.20.2006 EICAR-Test-File
    Sophos 4.11.0 11.16.2006 EICAR-AV-Test
    TheHacker 6.0.3.122 11.18.2006 EICAR_Test_File
    UNA 1.83 11.20.2006 EICAR.Test-file
    VBA32 3.11.1 11.20.2006 EICAR-Test-File
    VirusBuster 4.3.15:9 11.20.2006 EICAR_test_file
     
  15. ASpace

    ASpace Guest

    Obviously , it is not Panda and IKarus :D :D :D :thumb:
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.