checkvir certification

Discussion in 'other anti-virus software' started by christophs, May 2, 2005.

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

    christophs Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2004
    Posts:
    23
  2. waters

    waters Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2004
    Posts:
    934
    Trend,Norton and Etrust allways get advanced.
    I am supprised none of the others occasionally get advanced.
     
  3. Firecat

    Firecat Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2005
    Posts:
    7,927
    Location:
    The land of no identity :D
    Well, I dont trust Checkvir, because once MicroWorld's eScan (KAV engine) got ADVANCED certification but KAV did not.
     
  4. Don Pelotas

    Don Pelotas Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2004
    Posts:
    2,257
    I have to agree with you, Kaushik. It's hard to believe a test that rates, Etrust, Norton and Trend-Micro as "Advanced" and F-Secure, Kaspersky, McAfee and Nod as "Standard".
     
  5. Firecat

    Firecat Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2005
    Posts:
    7,927
    Location:
    The land of no identity :D
    Yup. I used to have a small collection of VBS and Macro viruses and a few Trojans, and PCC and Norton would only manage to clean the Macro ones. PCC wouldn't even detect all the Trojans.

    Kaspersky disinfected all the viruses and deleted all the Trojans.
     
  6. christophs

    christophs Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2004
    Posts:
    23
    But it is not the first time, that KAV didnt get the ADVANCED-level.
    Norton got it. o_O
     
  7. Firecat

    Firecat Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2005
    Posts:
    7,927
    Location:
    The land of no identity :D
    Thats what I'm saying. In every other test out there (as well as real-world), KAV has proven itself to be a better disinfector and a better malware detector than Norton, Trend or eTrust. That is why I feel Checkvir is "rigged" to an extent.

    How can MicroWorld's eScan based on KAV engine do better than KAV itself? Answer: The test is rigged.

    Hope that explains a bit.
     
  8. Sputnik

    Sputnik Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2005
    Posts:
    1,198
    Location:
    Москва
    I doubt the comments here, because we talk not about detection here... CheckVir mainly tests the cleaning capabilities of AV's... I don't see why this test is rigged, because (once again) cleaning and detection are a whole different thing!!!
     
  9. Ianb

    Ianb Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2004
    Posts:
    232
    Location:
    UK
    For me personally I don't care about cleaning - detection is far more important.
     
  10. Sputnik

    Sputnik Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2005
    Posts:
    1,198
    Location:
    Москва
    Kinda stupid I think (sorry)...
    So if your important word file is infected you just want to delete it and not clean it so there's not much (no) work gone? I'm sorry but cleaning and detection go hand in hand...
     
  11. Ianb

    Ianb Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2004
    Posts:
    232
    Location:
    UK
    Not if you make regular backups and have a decent imaging solution (like Drive Image or Ghost).

    I did say personally ;)

    BTW, I wasn't attacking your post just pointing out that the test has no credibility for what I need.
     
  12. Sputnik

    Sputnik Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2005
    Posts:
    1,198
    Location:
    Москва
    That's no problem, I didn't feel to be attacked in any way... It's just that backups can't safe you from everything, especially not by "normal" home users. A good antivirus solution had both good detection and good cleaning.
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.