Check this out....Antivirus Malware-Test Lab Dec 11, 2006

There are no credible anti-spyware tests in existence as of now. I wonder if there will ever be. This test is no exception I dont believe that it is reliable at all.

 

Strange, I read the latest test and many AV scored different. Bitdefender as the first place, NOD32 second and KAV as third. F-Secure scored different than KAV again, strange.

Link: http://malware-test.com/smf/index.php?topic=3245.0

‧BitDefender Internet Security v10: 94.85%
‧ESET NOD32 2.7: 89.12%
‧Kaspersky Internet Security 6.0: 88.86%
‧Grisoft AVG Anti-Spyware 7.5 (ewido anti-spyware 4.0): 88.50%
‧Alwil avast! 4.7 Home Edition (free): 84.47%
‧Norman Virus Control 5.82: 79.41%
‧Rising Antivirus 2006: 69.11%
‧F-Secure Internet Security 2007: 68.20%
‧Sunbelt CounterSpy 1.5: 67.51%
‧Panda Internet Security 2007: 65.79%
‧Spyware Terminator 1.5 (with WinClamAV 1.1): 65.57%
‧AVIRA AntiVir PersonalEdition Classic 7.0 (free): 57.57%
‧Trend Micro PC-cillin Internet Security 2007: 49.18%
‧EMSISoftware a-square free 2.1 (free): 40.61%
‧McAfee Internet Security 2007: 38.35%
‧Microsoft Windows Defender 1.1 (free): 33.88%
‧ZoneAlarm Security Suite 6.5: 32.12%
‧PC Tools Spyware Doctor 4.0: 31.70%
‧Trend Micro Anti-Spyware 3.5: 28.30%
‧SUPERAntiSpyware 3.4: 23.75%
‧AhnLab SpyZero 2007: 23.45%
‧Comodo AntiVirus 1.1 (free): 17.57%
‧Webroot Spy Sweeper 5.2: 16.51%
‧Symantec Norton Internet Security 2007: 13.33%
‧Lavasoft Ad-Aware SE Personal (free): 12.42%
‧CA Internet Security 2007 (antispyware part only): 9.92%
‧CyberDefender AntiSpyware 2006: 3.08%
‧Outpost Firewall Pro 4.0: 0.93%
‧Tenebril SpyCatcher Express 4.0 (free): 0.52%
‧TrojanHunter 4.6: 0.00%

 

Yeah, another silly test.

He performed an anti-spyware test and tested Avira Classic which does not detect ad/spyware? Yet of the other products, he used the suites or full versions.

 

I'm impressed with Antivir classic's detection here - it's not even supposed to detect ad/spyware but at 57.7% it hasn't done too bad at all.

Londonbeat

 

Ya Avira's detection was quite impressive for something that doesn't detect spyware.

 

Well, at least it strokes my ego of KASPERSKY IS6 since this is the first AV in sometime that hasn't give my units some sort of issue beit minor or worse.

With all do respect, personally AVG, BitDefender, and Avira have had my attention & my personal interests but didn't qualify to my satisfactions. Hard as it was to regain my complete trust in any AV now that HIPS are on the scene i can confidently say (at least for now) that KIS6 is won me over. I like surprises that lift the spirits compared to lifting anxieties. Taking absolutely nothing away from all the other main players in this field, KIS6 just happens to blend together with my setup while performing as expected and that is reason for some excitement from my camp after experiencing all sorts of frustrations before.

It's a science that walks a very thin line in keeping itself stable while having to live up to what it's designed to do and thats no easy task from what i've seen over the years.

Good effort from all of them.

 

I just read this at the Asia Pacific BitDefender site:

http://www.bitdefender.com.sg/NW337...te-in-Malware-Test-Lab-Comparison-Report.html

Clearly, if BitDefender made a press release on the fact that they topped this test, then I would expect that BitDefender thinks malware-test.com is reliable. Now this is getting confusing to me....

Interestingly enough, this press release is not there on the global BitDefender page. But regardless, I wouldn't expect BD to make a press release out of something that is supposed to be unreliable (I call that shooting yourself in the foot)....

Of course, there is also the matter that BitDefender apparently did not work properly on the tester's PC for the AntiVirus test, due to which it was excluded.....hmm? Definitely something strange going on here.

 

i know loads dissagree, but whether its corrupted or not etc, it comes to "its either malware or not" and if "one vendor finds malware in its current form, while another AV does not"

i understand the av one was not all put to high settings, but they said they would fix that in the next test, i like the test, its always good to get more people testing, whether some agree or not, they are always interesting to read.

also checkvir.com do a little testing too.