Cyveillance testing finds AV vendors detect on average less than 19% of malware attac

Discussion in 'other anti-virus software' started by zerotox, Aug 19, 2010.

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

    zerotox Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2009
    Posts:
    417
  2. CloneRanger

    CloneRanger Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2006
    Posts:
    4,833
    @ zerotox

    Good catch, thanks for posting :thumb:

    cy.gif

    Very revealing chart :p

    *

    Well that's a lot better than the poultry 16 samples from - https://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?t=279735

    *

    *

    Hmm Virginia, that's where Langley is too ;)
     
  3. NAMOR

    NAMOR Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 19, 2004
    Posts:
    1,526
    Location:
    Arkham Asylum
    All this great info from a company with a security product/service to sell. :D
     
  4. JRViejo

    JRViejo Global Moderator

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2008
    Posts:
    20,910
    Location:
    U.S.A.
  5. zerotox

    zerotox Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2009
    Posts:
    417
  6. Kid Shamrock

    Kid Shamrock Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Posts:
    207
    Too bad they didn't test Avast, Avira and Emsisoft.
     
  7. Kernelwars

    Kernelwars Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2010
    Posts:
    2,155
    Location:
    TX
    Panda where are you?:oops:
     
  8. lordraiden

    lordraiden Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2006
    Posts:
    3,066
    Norton always surprising, some test thet are the best in others the worst, a bit suspicious.
    Some people are already killing NOD32 but seems that thet still have a lot of things to offer.
     
  9. zerotox

    zerotox Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2009
    Posts:
    417
    Yes, NOD32 has very good detection of rogues especially. On 1 forum in our country, where daily people post links to many zero day threats for testing - NOD32 is usually one of the few according to VT that catches the largest number of them.
    As a pure antivirus, I think there are very few rivals. Of course relying solely on it is quite naiive but still I'm quite amused at those saying it is going downhill.
     
  10. Noob

    Noob Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2009
    Posts:
    6,468
    +1 Yeah, we need some more vendors in that list :rolleyes:
     
  11. dr pan k

    dr pan k Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2007
    Posts:
    204
    I doubt u can find a single test where nod32 wont score among the first positions, along with kaspersky. I as many others prefer this kind of constancy when choosing an AV solution. On the specific test one should focus particularly to the 1st (zero day) capability which indicates the heuristics, and the 8th day, which demonstrates how fast the producer will implement the new definitions.
     
  12. MrBrian

    MrBrian Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2008
    Posts:
    6,032
    Location:
    USA
    From http://www.thetechherald.com/articl...acking-when-it-comes-to-detection-says-report:
     
  13. Stefan Kurtzhals

    Stefan Kurtzhals AV Expert

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2003
    Posts:
    701
    These type of pure scanning tests are almost useless these days as many AV products have several layers of protection. HIPS/behaviour blocker, reputation, improved detection on their cloud backend and so on.

    The problem is that it is almost impossible to perform a reproduceable test and of course it takes way more time as you have to execute every single of the malware samples instead of just scanning them in 1 pass. Only very few testers are capable of doing a proper AV test these days.
     
  14. scott1256ca

    scott1256ca Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2009
    Posts:
    144
    I would agree that the tests were of little value if the security packages could only be installed as a single unit and none of the components turned off. But that is generally not the case. Since you can select your own HIPS, for example, then knowing how the 'virus scanner' part of a package performs can be useful, if you want to play mix and match. OTOH, while I consider cloud based (or not) to be a legitimate part of the AV component, I'm still not convinced that this, by itself, should increase detection, but that would be a discussion for a different thread.
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.