AV-Comparatives

Discussion in 'NOD32 version 2 Forum' started by De Hollander, Sep 2, 2006.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. De Hollander

    De Hollander Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2005
    Posts:
    718
    Location:
    Windmills and cows
    On demand comparative august 2006
    Is this a good ranking o_O
     
  2. webyourbusiness

    webyourbusiness Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2004
    Posts:
    2,640
    Location:
    Throughout the USA and Canada
    NOD32 got an "Advanced+" rating - it's the highest awarded by AV-Comparatives. You should read their testing methodology and decide if it makes sense to me - personally, I don't go much on that kind of crippling of an AV system, but that's *MY* opinion.

    hth

    Greg
     
  3. webyourbusiness

    webyourbusiness Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2004
    Posts:
    2,640
    Location:
    Throughout the USA and Canada
    lol - the biggest "failing" - ie, the lowest score on the Eset product is for the category "OtherOS viruses/malware" - I'm assuming that's detecting malware and viruses from other operating systems, ie, those that can't infect the host operating system - I wonder what the scores would be if you took that column out, because quite brutally, I don't care about a virus/malware on MY system that has no chance of infecting MY SYSTEM... but again, that's me...
     
  4. kjempen

    kjempen Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2004
    Posts:
    379
    Comparing with their last on-demand test (February), NOD32 have, in the following areas:

    DOS viruses/malware: scored higher (less than half a %)
    Windows viruses: scored lower (less than 1%)
    Macro viruses: scored higher (less than half a %)
    Script viruses/malware: scored higher (~0.5%)
    Worms: scored higher (less than half a %)
    Backdoors: scored higher (less than half a %)
    Trojans: scored higher (little more than 1 and a half %)
    other malware: scored higher (little more than 11%)
    OtherOS viruses malware: scored higher (little more than 3%)

    Overall, NOD32 seems to be doing better in this test than in previous on-demand test. Their biggest improvements, as far as I can see, is in the "other malware" & "OtherOS viruses malware" categories.

    Also, according to this test, NOD32 is "excellent" in detection of dialers, so no real "weak" spots for this good program (when it comes to detection).

    In other words, good work ESET! :thumb:
     
  5. pykko

    pykko Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2005
    Posts:
    2,236
    Location:
    Romania...and walking to heaven
    I've just seen the test results and NOD32 is the third, taking into consideration only stand-alone AV products, not multi-engine products.

    They performed very well, but I think they should take a look to polymorphic viruses: Zelly.A and Insane.A were not fully detected.

    Otherwise keep the good work. :thumb:
     
  6. Marcos

    Marcos Eset Staff Account

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2002
    Posts:
    14,374
    Unfortunately, the results don't tell anything about false positives. At least one of the first AVs produces a lot of them, we could also flag anything suspicious that is packed with strange packers at cost of producing many FPs, but that's certainly not the way to go.
     
  7. pykko

    pykko Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2005
    Posts:
    2,236
    Location:
    Romania...and walking to heaven
    well, that means the samples were corrupted and IBK should remove them. :D
     
  8. IBK

    IBK AV Expert

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2003
    Posts:
    1,819
    Location:
    Innsbruck (Austria)
    that's not what marcos means. about the false positives: in some months we will see how many false positives it produces and what the next steps are.
     
  9. pykko

    pykko Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2005
    Posts:
    2,236
    Location:
    Romania...and walking to heaven
    well, misunderstanding perhaps. :)
    He was talking generally not about my post, now I see. :D
     
  10. cerBer

    cerBer Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2006
    Posts:
    81
    From when is bashing of other AV's allowed here?

    Thanks.
     
  11. Stefan Kurtzhals

    Stefan Kurtzhals AV Expert

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2003
    Posts:
    701
    Let him bash, it only shows that they have a serious problem. :-* :D
     
  12. pykko

    pykko Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2005
    Posts:
    2,236
    Location:
    Romania...and walking to heaven
    mmm...what I want from ESET is to add those missed samples in the next few weeks. Hope I don't require something too heavy and I also hope you're not going to wait till the next comparative test to add them in "huge" updates. :rolleyes:
     
  13. rdsu

    rdsu Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2003
    Posts:
    4,456
    It seems that Marcos said something wrong... :rolleyes:

    If the false positive really counts on these tests, AntiVir would not had the ADVANCED Certification level on the Retrospective/ProActive Test of May 2006...
     
    Last edited: Sep 3, 2006
  14. NOD32 user

    NOD32 user Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2005
    Posts:
    1,766
    Location:
    Australia
    I do believe that Stefan Kurtzhals was agreeing with Marcos.

    But nobody mentioned the product they were speaking of.

    Cheers :)
     
  15. Suggers

    Suggers Guest

  16. Smokey

    Smokey Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2002
    Posts:
    1,513
    Location:
    Annie's Pub
    Come on Marcos, stay fair:cautious:
     
  17. NOD32 user

    NOD32 user Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2005
    Posts:
    1,766
    Location:
    Australia
    Well there you go - and I still though he was speaking of another one.

    Cheers :)
     
  18. IBK

    IBK AV Expert

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2003
    Posts:
    1,819
    Location:
    Innsbruck (Austria)
    in some months we will see how many false positives the av's produce and what the next steps are, so please lets wait without speculating (as maybe another surprise could arise).
     
  19. rdsu

    rdsu Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2003
    Posts:
    4,456
    Do you like that an AV produce a lot of false positives?

    You can delete good and essential files!!!
     
  20. rdsu

    rdsu Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2003
    Posts:
    4,456
    What would be really nice was if you penalty the AV's depending on their false positives number...

    On the last Retrospective/ProActive Test I didn't see that...
     
  21. IBK

    IBK AV Expert

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2003
    Posts:
    1,819
    Location:
    Innsbruck (Austria)
    there was a penality, just re-read the report ;)

    additionally, at the end of this year (this is something new) there will be a short summary about the "winner(s)" of the year.
     
  22. RejZoR

    RejZoR Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2004
    Posts:
    6,426
    Of course, if you're a moron that's just clicking Next or Ok buttons without reading...
     
  23. Smokey

    Smokey Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2002
    Posts:
    1,513
    Location:
    Annie's Pub
    Look to IBK's comment, 2 posts below;)
     
  24. rdsu

    rdsu Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2003
    Posts:
    4,456
  25. BlueZannetti

    BlueZannetti Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2003
    Posts:
    6,590
    RejZoR,

    Not always. If you're a novice user and are not even aware of the concept of a false positive, you may be caught short and find yourself on the steep end of a learning curve. Simply doing something wrong does not equate to being a moron. Never has, never will.

    Blue
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.