CSO article / AV Test

Discussion in 'other anti-virus software' started by risl, May 21, 2009.

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

    risl Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2006
    Posts:
    581
    top 10:

    # 1. -- G Data -- 36,423 -- 99.95 percent
    # 2. -- Trust Port -- 36,171 -- 99.26 percent
    # 3. -- eScan -- 36,146 -- 99.20 percent
    # 5. -- BitDefender -- 36,105 -- 99.08 percent
    # 6. -- Avira -- 35,846 -- 98.37 percent
    # 7. -- Hauri -- 35,325 -- 96.94 percent
    # 8. -- Trend Micro -- 35,182 -- 96.55 percent
    # 9. -- DrWeb -- 34,114 -- 93.62 percent
    # 10. -- F-Prot -- 32,635 -- 89.56 percent

    http://www.csoonline.com/article/49...One_Man_s_Quest_for_Nearly_Objective_Rankings
     
  2. benton4

    benton4 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2004
    Posts:
    158
    Location:
    Oregon
    Thanks for the hard work that goes into tests like these. Speaking for myself, it's so hard to know which tests are truely uninfluenced by money these days.:blink:
     
  3. vlk

    vlk AV Expert

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2002
    Posts:
    618
    IMO this test is a big joke.
     
  4. Macstorm

    Macstorm Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2005
    Posts:
    2,531
    Location:
    Sneffels volcano
    ..and the controversy goes on...

    :blink: ??

    Thanks for the finding, risl ;)
     
  5. the Tester

    the Tester Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2002
    Posts:
    2,854
    Location:
    The Gateway to the Blue Hills,WI.
    Nice test and report.
    I like that he used a large test set and tested quite a few programs.

    ssj100,
    eScan used to be a Kaspersky clone. Don't know about now.
     
  6. Az7

    Az7 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2005
    Posts:
    139
    1st Scan : 0%
    2nd time : 99%

    How come ?
     
  7. mvdu

    mvdu Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2003
    Posts:
    1,151
    Location:
    PA
    How did AVG score so low, I wonder? I mean, it's never scored THAT bad.
     
  8. Macstorm

    Macstorm Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2005
    Posts:
    2,531
    Location:
    Sneffels volcano
    Either he didn't play nice or he's running a faulty system :D
     
  9. Martijn2

    Martijn2 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2006
    Posts:
    321
    Location:
    The Netherlands
    McAfee has the most false positives of all scanners tested... wait what? *puppy*

    With all the ' false positives' (yeah right) put aside, it still caught more than Gdata, even that is hard to believe.

    Conclusion, another bull*^%& test :D
     
  10. Firecat

    Firecat Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2005
    Posts:
    7,927
    Location:
    The land of no identity :D
    The computer has some serious issues, we know very little about the type of samples used, etc., and not to mention the tester seems to be taking a direct potshot at (what seems to be) AV-comparatives :eek:

    The guy couldn't find a link to download Virus Chaser........if he had checked the HK site he could have found it very easy, not to mention it's on CNET/Download.com anyway ;)

    What else is left to say? It's a very disappointing attempt.........
     
  11. Firecat

    Firecat Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2005
    Posts:
    7,927
    Location:
    The land of no identity :D
    eScan now uses BitDefender + some custom developed scan engines :)

    Certain detections of BitDefender are disabled in eScan - for example some specific packer detections. However such detections are quite few and in the last AV-comparatives test, didn't impact the score by any significant extent :)
     
  12. progress

    progress Guest

    I think this test is a fake, I don't trust it :cautious:
     
  13. format_c

    format_c Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2008
    Posts:
    116
  14. Firecat

    Firecat Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2005
    Posts:
    7,927
    Location:
    The land of no identity :D
  15. m00nbl00d

    m00nbl00d Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2009
    Posts:
    6,623
    Oh my, oh my... How lucky have I been this far?

    Honestly, I run AVG in one of my systems for so long, and I never found any infections. Did it missed them? Maybe. Then again, so did others, as they never flagged a thing.

    Its like wise people say, innocent until proven otherwise.

    Anyway... Who's Chaz? I wonder if the guy would be willing to provide solid proves of those results. After all, saying that AVG could only flag 110 pieces of malware.... Makes me wonder...

    Just as I've said I guess that my whole family has been so lucky not becoming infected.... Yep.


    Cheers
     
  16. Stefan Kurtzhals

    Stefan Kurtzhals AV Expert

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2003
    Posts:
    701
    Sigh, another test which is totally useless.

    The tester does not even understand the basic concept how av scanners scan files, the difference between physical files and (sub-) objects being checked.

    That a single executable can contain more than 1 malware and that some av scanners actually do report it like this is beyond his understanding it seems. RAR SFX, NSIS, droppers?

    Also, the tester made the typical wanna-be tester mistake: he only used the scanner log and summary to calculate the end-results. Oh well...

    And I don't even want to start guessing what mess of garbage files he used for his "test". I seriously doubt he even attempted to sort out damaged files, non-malicious files, keygens/cracks and similar crap.
     
  17. trjam

    trjam Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2006
    Posts:
    9,057
    Location:
    North Carolina
    now would you feel the same if Aviras name was at the top of that list.:cautious:
     
  18. Stefan Kurtzhals

    Stefan Kurtzhals AV Expert

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2003
    Posts:
    701
    Why should I like being #1 in a crappy, faulty test?

    My concern is the *real* protection level for customers, against hand-optimized/adjusted malware from profesionals. Who cares if we are good in detection malware that is 1+ month old and no longer relevant at all? It's easy to score well in these tests, you just need to blow up your signature database to 3.000.000+ entries... Which gives zero protection against server-side polymorphic malware.
     
  19. Arup

    Arup Guest

    Boy am I glad avira didnt' come out on top, just imagine the rabid foam in mouth attacks from others. Would this test make me change my mind on Avira.........not a chance.
     
  20. Technodrome

    Technodrome Security Expert

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2002
    Posts:
    2,140
    Location:
    New York
    Another virus collector test.o_O As discussed here in the past this tests are highly unreliable and not recommended.


    tD
     
  21. subset

    subset Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2007
    Posts:
    825
    Location:
    Austria
    Is it a potshot? :doubt:
    I don't think so, IMHO he cuts right to the chase of the matter... "a testing lab accepts money from a company to test its product"... "this business model excludes smaller companies that are unable or unwilling to pay the testing fees"

    Of course the test itself is a sick joke. :argh:
    It's just a 'Scan and look at GUI' test.
    I wonder that he didn't write - 36,438 pieces of malware - xy detected 36,492 - makes 100,15% detection rate. :blink:

    He obviously had no clue how to interpret these results and therefore - "These AV products were eliminated because they reported more malware than actually existed on the computer (false positives)" o_O

    Cheers
     
  22. Saraceno

    Saraceno Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2008
    Posts:
    2,404
    Ahhh, another test to pass the time.

    Wow, the clam slam dunks kaspersky and symantec. I will tell everyone to uninstall Kaspersky and Norton, and instead, install the clam. ;) :ninja:
     
  23. Dark_Hanzo

    Dark_Hanzo Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2009
    Posts:
    172
    Location:
    Canada
    I already ditched Norton because of this test :D
     
  24. Taliscicero

    Taliscicero Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2008
    Posts:
    1,439
    Nerd's everywhere, My AV is better then your AV wa,wa. Test has flaws. This test is a wash.
     
  25. format_c

    format_c Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2008
    Posts:
    116
    just the first link on google it was :p
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.