AV-Test.org march test results

Discussion in 'other anti-virus software' started by Valentin_Pletzer, Mar 10, 2008.

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

    Valentin_Pletzer Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2007
    Posts:
    11
    Hi,

    Andreas Marx (AV-Test.org) was kind enough to send me his newest security suite test results. As usual you will find the content of the excel file in my blog: http://blog.chip.de/0-security-blog/maerz-2008er-security-suiten-im-vergleich-20080310/ It is in german but shouldnt be to hard to read.

    For your reading pleasure his original mail: ~Removed. No private email to be posted without permission from sender. Ron~

    Greetings
    Valentin
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 10, 2008
  2. Oldjim

    Oldjim Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2005
    Posts:
    99
    Translated version linky
     
  3. C.S.J

    C.S.J Massive Poster

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2006
    Posts:
    5,029
    Location:
    this forum is biased!
    cheers Valentin,

    but i dont even have the energy to keep ranting on about these huge-tests.

    some key points:

    - Avira has the same level of heuristics as Drweb, and Panda has a better heuristic than both.

    - Panda also has better rootkit detection that drweb and Avira.

    - etrust, mcafee, norton and microsoft have a BETTER cleanup than Drweb, and apparently products like Avira, F-secure, Nod32 have the same level of cleanup in comparision to drweb.

    sure, people can label this as being biased, but truly... even without admitting it, the people of wilders know better, and these results just suck donkey <censored!>

    --
    ---
    ----
    -----

    im almost laughing at these so-called professionals now, they shouldnt give up their day job if this is what they truly bring to the table.

    you are Fired! - would be the words i would hear, if i performed so poorly in my own job :D
     
  4. lucas1985

    lucas1985 Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2006
    Posts:
    4,047
    Location:
    France, May 1968
    The proactive detection rates include both heuristics and runtime behaviour analysis (Deep Guard, TruPrevent, etc)
     
  5. C.S.J

    C.S.J Massive Poster

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2006
    Posts:
    5,029
    Location:
    this forum is biased!
    label it how you like lucas, they dont add up.

    truprevent's behaviour technology is at the lower end, and so are Panda's heuristics.
    also, other results are laughable and just dont add up.

    we better all switch to avast free and trend micro.

    because, thats obvious, right? :D
     
  6. kinwolf

    kinwolf Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2006
    Posts:
    271
    Inetresting, thanks for the link.


    The behavior analysis was only for 20 samples, still very nice to see they tested that though! I wish there was a table just for those.

    Translation:
     
  7. C.S.J

    C.S.J Massive Poster

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2006
    Posts:
    5,029
    Location:
    this forum is biased!
    ty ;)

    pinch of salt.
     
  8. lucas1985

    lucas1985 Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2006
    Posts:
    4,047
    Location:
    France, May 1968
    Not sure what you mean here. Panda's heuristics detect a lot of packed samples (so called paranoid heuristics) and Truprevent is a "OK" behaviour blocker. A high score in the behaviour-based tests might have boosted Panda's overall score, because the heuristic test uses a much larger sample bed.
    Well, this test brings good news to users of those products.
     
  9. lucas1985

    lucas1985 Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2006
    Posts:
    4,047
    Location:
    France, May 1968
    Yup, the "score" system hides the raw numbers (except in the on-demand test)
     
  10. C.S.J

    C.S.J Massive Poster

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2006
    Posts:
    5,029
    Location:
    this forum is biased!
    sure, it brings good news and also false news.

    im not saying Panda and Trend are poor products, but not even close to the so-called findings of Marx.

    anyone can state X product is good or bad.

    these results have even more material to challenge compared to IBKs results, and i very much doubt that it wont be long before they are challenged.

    for the prices Marx charges, i would just pull out of this piece of crap, because they are just plain rubbish, none of the results add up, at all...... and they certainly dont add up in comparison to IBK's test.

    these tests are flawed, look at the results for AV's that you have even tried yourself, you DONT need a heavy test and a degree to say what should be scoring what.

    i dont know what is the most stupid, these results or the companys that pay the high price for them? (couldnt that money be used on improving the product instead? or if your giving it away as you seem to be doing, why not back to customers?)
     
    Last edited: Mar 10, 2008
  11. xandros

    xandros Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2006
    Posts:
    411
    thank you
     
  12. kinwolf

    kinwolf Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2006
    Posts:
    271
    Something in there I find very intriguing.

    AVK G-Data and TrustPort seem to have strike out on rootkits. So I take it that while they licence the AV engines, the deal doesn't include the rootkit scanners?
     
  13. xandros

    xandros Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2006
    Posts:
    411
    avira antivir premium doing excellent
    very good antivir antivirus
     
  14. Firecat

    Firecat Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2005
    Posts:
    7,927
    Location:
    The land of no identity :D
    Then maybe you should wait till the next VirusP test releases, which should be sometime in May or June....:p :D
     
  15. Firecat

    Firecat Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2005
    Posts:
    7,927
    Location:
    The land of no identity :D
    No, its just that detection of active rootkits is highly dependent on the strength of the resident drivers of the application as well and not just the AV engine it uses :)
     
  16. C.S.J

    C.S.J Massive Poster

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2006
    Posts:
    5,029
    Location:
    this forum is biased!
    lol

    all these tests and none match, also how products change dramatically every 3 months or so. (its just soooo false)
     
  17. lucas1985

    lucas1985 Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2006
    Posts:
    4,047
    Location:
    France, May 1968
    Not quite true. These tests have statistical accuracy, low amounts of garbage files and a concise methodology. If you don't agree with flat file scanning or that the sample bed doesn't represent the scope of actively spreading malware, that's an entirely different thing.
    For example, my individual experiences (submiting of samples to VT, cleaning infected machines, keeping an eye on underground forums, etc) closely match most of the postulates.
     
  18. lucas1985

    lucas1985 Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2006
    Posts:
    4,047
    Location:
    France, May 1968
    They license the unpacking/emulating/file parsing engines, the databases and some other bits, but they build their own disk/registry access technology.
     
  19. solcroft

    solcroft Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2006
    Posts:
    1,639
    Sounds pretty much like what you're doing to me.

    Do you have any evidence or statistics to back up your hot air?
     
  20. C.S.J

    C.S.J Massive Poster

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2006
    Posts:
    5,029
    Location:
    this forum is biased!
    so, you believe these results?
     
  21. solcroft

    solcroft Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2006
    Posts:
    1,639
    That's an entirely different matter from what appears to be sheer hypocrisy on your part.
     
  22. C.S.J

    C.S.J Massive Poster

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2006
    Posts:
    5,029
    Location:
    this forum is biased!
    no its not, you either trust and believe the results, or dont.

    its not an hard decision.
     
  23. solcroft

    solcroft Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2006
    Posts:
    1,639
    It's not a hard decision. But accepting your word for it would be little different from accepting Andreas Marx's word for it. Obviously you go to great lengths to lambast the latter option, but have little problem with the former.

    I mean, come on. What gives? "I'm right, you're wrong, nee na na naah?" :shifty:
     
  24. C.S.J

    C.S.J Massive Poster

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2006
    Posts:
    5,029
    Location:
    this forum is biased!
    actually i make my own opinion up, its mine and i post it, you dont have to believe my opinion, and you can slate it, which you also take great lengths to always do ;) , but i will post it. :D


    it shouldnt be a matter of believing me or marx, judge yourself.

    dont you have an opinion, are you really so guillible to believe everything thats pasted infront of your eyes?

    you probably believe the americans landed on the moon in 69?

    lol o_O
     
  25. kinwolf

    kinwolf Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2006
    Posts:
    271
    Thanks, that make sense.
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.