Discussion in 'other anti-virus software' started by IBK, Nov 30, 2005.
yes, online. Now.
Job well done as ever, Andreas
Wow some pretty impressive results.
Now i finally have the chance to see HiVE results I wonder how you'll evaluate Kaspersky Proactive defense when it will be released. Executing each piece of malware? Or simply nothing resulting in poor proactive results in such type of test.
The time will tell you...
I'm happy to see BitDefender is still going strong (they stayed equal 49% just like in May). NOD32 still is the best, but they lost 8%, Kaspersky is most dissapointing And ofcource thanks a lot IBK! Your work is much appriciated!
A little list, about difference between the May - November test:
Kaspersky was lowered but keep in mind NOD was lower compare to last time as well. So it is not really KAV has degraded.
And one thing that didn't change......... AVG ><
@all: also read my comments/opinions in the foots of the results.
Tests like these are very rare - most of the times there's money involved making sure the outcome. Thanks for this solid and reliable test - and keep up the good work!
This is what I thought also, so am glad to see what for all intents appears to be a very unbiased test. Not sure I still understand it all, but I am learning. I also wish to say thank you.
Thank you IBK for this new test
Do you plan to release a separate test of other products like Norman or f-secure, as you did for the last proactive test ?
How do I do that? IE only displays part of each sentence at the bottom. Firefox and Mozilla are hopeless at your site so I have to use IE but it doesn't display properly either...but at least no text on top of text like with Fx and Mozilla.
Ahhh.. Netscape 7.2 shows me the full sentences at the bottom of the online results page. BUT the chart itself is so messed up I can't tell anything about how the various AVs did.
So, I need Netscape to read your notes and IE to see the chart.
I think your tests are the best but I hope some day I will be able to read everything at your site with out needing several browsers to do so!
With Firefox does it help when you got to the menu and select > View > Charater Encoding > Western when looking at the comparative results page(s)?
very informative results.thanks alot.IBK
I'm wondered about Avast.
As far as I know, Avast's on-demand scanner doesn't have any heuristics so then why Avast is able to proactively detect some malware samples without signatures, Avast appears to be better than AVG that claim to have heuristics and it seems to be as good as AntiVir and some other antivirus software that have heuristics.
Does Avast add signatures of detected sample before it gets tested?
Which Western? There are three. I had it on Western ISO 8859-1. Looks about the same on Wester ISO 8859-15. Western Windows 1252 is the worse of all. With it there is no graph. With the other two there is a graph but a great deal of text on top of text. That problem is not because I like a larger font, I don't think, because I lowered the zoom size to normal there so the font size was much smaller but I still see a great deal of text on top of text. But I have always seen that there with Firefox. So, I know to use IE there. I don't recall seeing IE chop off the latter part of the sentences in the notes though in the past. I think this is the first time it has done that. The notes display fully in Firefox.
I should mention that I don't have the very latest Fx version which was released yesterday. So, perhaps the problem is fixed in 1.5. I'm waiting until extensions are updated before getting it.
I'm still having problems viewing it with Firefox 1.5. The figures and letters run into each other.
do you test KAV 2006 ?
For sure not!
A retrospective test is not a pure "heuristic" test. also generic signatures applies.
just give us some tips
maybe i did already, and if i did you have to wait for the press release
otherwise february 2006.
Watching your beloved Starwars movies is well deserved now
IBK, pity you can't test the latest AV versions with old signatures instead (instead of old AV versions with old signatures, as you do now).
The point is, the test doesn't really tell how the scanners perform NOW but how they performed 6 months ago. So it would be even more precise to call it a "May 2005" test instead of "November 2005" - as this is how the scanners worked in May.
For example, during the last 6 months, we have added quite a few unpackers to the avast engine. Unfortunately, these were not included in the test as you used OLD engines...
Hope I'm making some sense.