AV-Comparatives Test Overview - May 2005

Discussion in 'other anti-virus software' started by Alantir, May 26, 2005.

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

    richrf Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2003
    Posts:
    1,907
    Yes, Firefox cannot render the online report correctly. Unfortunately, IE is the one I have to use.

    Rich
     
  2. IBK

    IBK AV Expert

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2003
    Posts:
    1,886
    Location:
    Innsbruck (Austria)
  3. RejZoR

    RejZoR Lurker

    Joined:
    May 31, 2004
    Posts:
    6,426
    <meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=windows-1252">
    <meta name=ProgId content=Excel.Sheet>
    <meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Excel 13">

    Then why don't you replace marked encoding with ISO-8859-1 in the page code ?! o_O
     
  4. IBK

    IBK AV Expert

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2003
    Posts:
    1,886
    Location:
    Innsbruck (Austria)
    does not help; you can also click on windows-1252 and it will show the page correctly. just try it.

    http://www.av-comparatives.org/images/fire.gif
     
  5. VikingStorm

    VikingStorm Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2003
    Posts:
    387
    I was probably unclear. I was referring to 90% detection of new ITW pro-actively. Because that is insanely high. Didn't think anything above 50% was possible. (Of course, BD also scored above that). So pretty amazed.
     
  6. Franklin

    Franklin Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2005
    Posts:
    2,517
    Location:
    West Aussie
    Yep,thanks people,switched to IE,no probs now.Forgot IE existed.Just damn glad it was firefox's rendering and not me.Wondering how you lot could make head or tail of the report,LOL!!!
     
  7. RejZoR

    RejZoR Lurker

    Joined:
    May 31, 2004
    Posts:
    6,426
    Also try to make tables with tool other than Excel (Excel generated HTML+Firefox/Opera don't go too well together)...
     
  8. IBK

    IBK AV Expert

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2003
    Posts:
    1,886
    Location:
    Innsbruck (Austria)
    Making table with other tools means for me more work. And the issue with Firefox does not happen everything and not to all Firefox users. I use Firefox too and most time I get the tables correctly. Mozilla Firefox told in past that they will add better support for such sites in next versions, so I consider it not as a necessary thing that I must do; at least I give hints on how to solve this problem easily in case that someone encounter it.
     
  9. just had a look at the test results - good for nod32 and eset - but should i read too much in to the fact that the guy in charge of testing has a joke signature referring to an eset employee?
     
  10. If you notice....he also has the joke in a few other people...ie Firecat

    and some others. It's just a running gag thats been going on for some time

    now.

    P.S. the above just wondering....ain't me
     
  11. ronjor

    ronjor Global Moderator

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2003
    Posts:
    163,047
    Location:
    Texas
    justwondering

    To infer that AV-Comparatives tests are influenced by a signature on a forum is ludicrous at best.
     
  12. Bubba

    Bubba Updates Team

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2002
    Posts:
    11,271
    One should not read to much into that signature :eek: :D :blink: :ninja:
     
  13. IBK

    IBK AV Expert

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2003
    Posts:
    1,886
    Location:
    Innsbruck (Austria)
    I know that guy since long time. He worked in the last years for many other AV's and now he works at ESET. Should I for that reason do not longer talk to him?
     
  14. SDS909

    SDS909 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2005
    Posts:
    333
    Very nice Dr. Web Performance, especially since the last outbreak Dr.Web nailed with just heuristics.

    Advanced Rating, light as heck, bravo Dr.
     
  15. Stephanos G.

    Stephanos G. Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2005
    Posts:
    720
    Location:
    Cyprus
    Better stay on test results which seems very reliable.
     
  16. waters

    waters Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2004
    Posts:
    958
    I see panda got advanced+.
    Is there any details anywhere on its actual results .
    Nod total was 70% ,what was it for panda.
     
  17. IBK

    IBK AV Expert

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2003
    Posts:
    1,886
    Location:
    Innsbruck (Austria)
    Panda would absolutly not reach the 70% on-demand like NOD32 did. Even if there are no results available, I can say this and be sure of 100% about this, because I just tried something and saw a results.
    I guess Panda would get Advanced, do not know if it would be able to reach advanced+. But dunno exactly as I do not have a 3 month old product here...
     
  18. KAYLA

    KAYLA Guest

    I perform in May for my own knowlege a similar but smaller test to this by Andreas Clementi, but using AV of latest 31st December 2004 issue.

    I test only virus, in trojaner or backdoor I am not interested. No doubt his and mine test viruses will not be quite identical, but a close approximation, there are only so many new viruses alive to choose in that time.

    My results, NOD32 is the clear winner with amazingly 91% heuristic of new viruses, and related lower figures for other AV. From this I will confirm my belief Andreas Clementi is an honest tester, and give my strong congratulation.
     
  19. KAYLA

    KAYLA Guest

    Correct. Panda is include in my own May 2005 test. It is better performing than many, but can not be spoken in the same breath as NOD32. For new viruses, Panda TruPrevent December 2004 results only 62%, against 91% for NOD32 of the same age.

    (I am formerly KAV user for some years, moving to NOD32 only 2 weeks ago.)
     
  20. Rasheed187

    Rasheed187 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2004
    Posts:
    17,546
    Location:
    The Netherlands
    Does anybody know why Norman AV isn´t included in the test? I want to know if their Sandbox technology really is as good as they claim it is. :rolleyes:
     
  21. ronjor

    ronjor Global Moderator

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2003
    Posts:
    163,047
    Location:
    Texas
  22. Rasheed187

    Rasheed187 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2004
    Posts:
    17,546
    Location:
    The Netherlands
    Thanks Ronjor, I will check it out. ;)
     
  23. rdsu

    rdsu Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2003
    Posts:
    4,537
    Rasheed187,

    also read the FAQ file... ;)

    Regards
     
  24. Rasheed187

    Rasheed187 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2004
    Posts:
    17,546
    Location:
    The Netherlands
    Thanks VaMPiRiC_CRoW ;).

    So it seems that the Norman Sandbox thing isn´t really that good? Is that the right conclusion?
     
  25. rdsu

    rdsu Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2003
    Posts:
    4,537
    I think that it's better if you put these questions on the AV-Comparatives forum to a better answer from the owner... ;)

    What I know is on answer #7 from the FAQ...
     
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.