Av-Comparatives Retrospective/Proactive Test May 2009

Discussion in 'other anti-virus software' started by guest, May 27, 2009.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Jin K

    Jin K Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2008
    Posts:
    105
    oh!! as always kaspersky is getting bad !! i think in the next on-demand test its will get only ADVANCED :'(
     
  2. raven211

    raven211 Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 4, 2005
    Posts:
    2,567
    You're kidding right? It had few false positives and not far away from the usual top-tier NOD. 2010 will probably shake it up even more.
     
  3. andyman35

    andyman35 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2007
    Posts:
    2,336
    IMO a few FPs on obscure products are a small price to pay for Avira's vastly superior detection of real malware in that test.
     
  4. elapsed

    elapsed Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2004
    Posts:
    7,076
    But so will malware, you can't really predict the AV will get better, or worse.
     
  5. Jin K

    Jin K Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2008
    Posts:
    105
    no im not kidding !! see their old results and compare them to this ، they are sucking a hard time !! also they haven’t improved their lousy heurstic and generic detection in ver2010 so no shaking ;)
     
  6. sourav_gho

    sourav_gho Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 22, 2009
    Posts:
    141
    You may be right... but you should not forget that the lower scores of Kaspersky Labs could be attributed by: It has been the favorite attack spot of various virus writers across the globe, attackers specifically target their security products especially antivirus
     
  7. Fly

    Fly Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2007
    Posts:
    2,201
    Interesting.

    It doesn't mention the cleaning abilities of the AV. Is there some information out there that can shed some light on this ?

    Somewhat off topic: I've been looking for a chart regarding the market share of AVs, but couldn't find any. Does anyone how/where to obtain it ?
     
  8. vijayind

    vijayind Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2008
    Posts:
    1,413
    Well, Norman has landed at the bottom of the pack. Even with its advertised "Sandbox" & "DNA matching" technology, it has failed to get even decent results.
    Also if AVG 8.5 with Sana Labs tech had been used, there would have been a better show by them. We'll have to wait till the next proactive test to see if really AVG advertising is real.
    MS is looking very very good !! If Morro even suffices to be decent, they will make a big dent to the competition. Maybe that's why Symantec is bundling ASK.com, while McAfee & AVG are pushing Yahoo!

    Wonder when VIPRE will be included in such tests ?? Also does any one know why Authentium/F-Prot was not tested ? They were part of the Feb'09 test, but are missing from the proactive test.
     
    Last edited: May 28, 2009
  9. RejZoR

    RejZoR Lurker

    Joined:
    May 31, 2004
    Posts:
    6,426
    Proactive part in AVG from Sana doesn't work on-demand because it's a behavior blocker. Besides, their tech is not all that hot anyway. I was totally dissapointed by that thing compared to excellent ThreatFire.
     
  10. vijayind

    vijayind Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2008
    Posts:
    1,413
    You are right, only on-execution tests can determine the effectiveness of BB or HIPS. Guess we'll have to wait till the Dynamic tests, to see their effectiveness.
     
  11. raven211

    raven211 Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 4, 2005
    Posts:
    2,567
    Yes, but I was more pointing at the results it had, that's an Advanced+ rating. Looking at the other products, you can see that it gets harder and harder to reach high detection while keeping the FPs down.
     
  12. raven211

    raven211 Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 4, 2005
    Posts:
    2,567
    Right, right... how old were you again?
     
  13. elapsed

    elapsed Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2004
    Posts:
    7,076
    I believe 1. most of that technology is ran on file execution 2. They used the old Norman (not the recent version)
     
  14. NickHSunbelt

    NickHSunbelt Support Specialist

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2009
    Posts:
    177
    Location:
    Clearwater, Florida
    I actually checked with our product manager about this recently and he tells me "We’re getting our detections up to world-class before we submit to the public testing. We’re real close…"

    I do know that with the internal testing we've done we've scored very near the top. I believe we'll be included in the next round of tests.
     
  15. Fajo

    Fajo Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2008
    Posts:
    1,814
    Yet Avira and Nod are both targeted by the same attacks and manage to keep there detections up. Kaspersky really has no excuse and only them self's to blame... :cautious:

    And before you state it I'm not bashing kasper just stating the truth.
     
  16. Stefan Kurtzhals

    Stefan Kurtzhals AV Expert

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2003
    Posts:
    702
    You have to keep in mind that

    a) the malware gets more and more anti-heuristic/anti-generic, more experienced in breaking generic detections

    b) that the other av products are constantly improving their detection also

    So it's hard already to maintain the very same level of detection.

    The most popular AV products are attacked the most, the malware writers are especially interested in breaking the heuristic/generic detection.
     
  17. vijayind

    vijayind Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2008
    Posts:
    1,413
    I checked on Norman site (http://www.norman.com/downloads/home/58573/en-us) 7.10 is their latest version.

    Also I thought their "DNA" was just generic signatures and "Sandbox" was heuristic and not a VM like VIPRE's MX-V.

    But still their advertising does look precarious when such results are floating in public view. Hope they can regain some lost ground in Dynamic Tests later in the year.
     
  18. Durad

    Durad Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2005
    Posts:
    594
    Location:
    Canada
    Does it mean Windows Defender had good generic detection as well or only One Care product?
     
  19. Sputnik

    Sputnik Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2005
    Posts:
    1,198
    Location:
    Москва
    @Stefan Kurtzhals
    Well said! Even though you're not too exited with 'your' score, still a h*ll of a good job! :thumb:

    @Durad
    Seen quite some generic detections from Windows Defender as well. However they (Defender and OneCare) don't seem to use the very same database/engine.

    @IBK
    Thanks a lot for your efforts again!
     
    Last edited: May 28, 2009
  20. vijayind

    vijayind Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2008
    Posts:
    1,413
    Hi Nick,
    Can you clarify, the text in bold.
    As you saying that currently you are selling a slightly inferior product and that VIPRE has yet to technologically go GOLD ?

    Regards,
    VijayIND
     
  21. NickHSunbelt

    NickHSunbelt Support Specialist

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2009
    Posts:
    177
    Location:
    Clearwater, Florida
    Not at all. As I mentioned, with our internal testing we're scoring near the top of the list. Our goal of course is to top the list or at least get as close as possible on the public testing. As I also previously mentioned, we're very close.
     
  22. alexeck

    alexeck Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2004
    Posts:
    33
    There seems to be a mis-alignment of communication here.

    There are a wealth of third-party testing organizations that we work with. VIPRE has been certified by West Coast Labs for 100% detection and remediation of all Wildlist viruses. Our product has been tested independently by TUV and Passmark for performance and received some of the highest scores in the testbed; it has also been tested for detection by PC Magazine and PC Pro, where in both cases it scored highly. We are working closely with third-party testing organizations such as AV-Test and AV-Comparatives and expect to have a third party validation from one of these firms in the near future. Our tests continue to show VIPRE as a leader in detection on in-the-wild malware, easily outpacing leading antivirus companies.
     
  23. lodore

    lodore Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2006
    Posts:
    9,064
    Hello JinK.
    I will summarise the charts from 2007 to 2009 AV comparative results for KL.
    Febuary 2007 on demand test Advanced Plus
    May 2007 Retrospective/Proactive Test Standard
    August 2007 on demand test Advanced Plus
    November 2007 Retrospective/Proactive Test Advanced Plus
    Febuary 2008 on demand test Advanced Plus
    May 2008 Retrospective/Proactive Test Standard
    August 2008 on demand test Advanced Plus
    November 2008 Retrospective/Proactive Test Advanced
    May 2009 Retrospective/Proactive Test Advanced Plus

    you will notice the on demand tests are Advanced plus .
    You should also notice Kaspersky is improving in the Retrospective/Proactive Tests.
    how can getting advanced plus for both tests be a bad thing?
    the heristics are improving all the time.
     
    Last edited: May 28, 2009
  24. bellgamin

    bellgamin Very Frequent Poster

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2002
    Posts:
    7,339
    Location:
    Hawaii
    I see no "mis-alignment" in NickHSunbelt's communication. IMO, he was communicating just fine. Open. Straightforward. Easily understood.

    OTOH, your unsupported, nebulous claim is mere hype. Nada mas.
     
  25. EraserHW

    EraserHW Malware Expert

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2005
    Posts:
    588
    Location:
    Italy
    It's a bit tricky, tho actually we started getting more and more reviews :)
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.