Feb 2005 UK magazine AV test

Discussion in 'other anti-virus software' started by I who know nothing, Mar 29, 2005.

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

    Blackcat Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2002
    Posts:
    4,010
    Location:
    Christchurch, UK
    I have noticed that F-Secure 2005, their "Best Buy" in this test, is becoming very popular with the Computer magazines in general over here.
     
  2. Grumble

    Grumble Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2004
    Posts:
    185
    Location:
    the sunshine state
    The three highlighted as "Best Buy", "Most Desirable" and "Best Budget Buy" all have KAV engines.
     
  3. Firefighter

    Firefighter Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2002
    Posts:
    1,670
    Location:
    Finland
    If AVG 7 beats Avast 4.6 in overall protection as it was now in this test, the number of samples must be only tens or not more than a few hundred. If so, the results are also an outcome of a lottery. In almost all tests I have seen (and mine too), Avast 4.6 has much higher overall detecting rate than AVG 7. Pure coincidence? Hardly.

    Best regards,
    Firefighter!
     
  4. Sputnik

    Sputnik Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2005
    Posts:
    1,198
    Location:
    Москва
    I agree, avast! is miles ahead of AVG... I don't trust this test, even when my favorite came out as best... In my opinion the next "crap" av test...
     
  5. Blackcat

    Blackcat Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2002
    Posts:
    4,010
    Location:
    Christchurch, UK
    Agreed. Most of the UK Magazine 'tests' I have seen have only used a few viruses and trojans.

    In the UK market, the only exception to this very small sample size I have seen was VirusP's tests in PC Extreme; http://www.livepublishing.co.uk/pcextreme/pcx2.shtml
     
  6. Im no AV expert but if a given test is supposedly flawed why does KAV or KAV engined AV's always do well? If test results are a lottery then KAV and KAV engined AV's always seem to have extraordinary good luck, a coincidence?

    The EZ AV which is my current AV result is interesting in that it allegedly missed in the authors words a very common trojan yet it consistently scores 100% ITW on other tests.
     
  7. RejZoR

    RejZoR Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2004
    Posts:
    6,426
    How can be F-Secure best buy if it's almost the most expensive of all AVs?
     
  8. Blackcat

    Blackcat Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2002
    Posts:
    4,010
    Location:
    Christchurch, UK
    Out of the 9 commercial scanners they tested, it was the second cheapest to buy ;) Only beaten by eTrust EZ AntiVirus in their comparison Table.

     
  9. RejZoR

    RejZoR Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2004
    Posts:
    6,426
    I have to doublecheck. Wasn't F-Secure the most expensive before?
     
  10. Blackcat

    Blackcat Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2002
    Posts:
    4,010
    Location:
    Christchurch, UK
    Large database for a variety of malware, great unpackers and frequent updates.
    Not luck, KAV is simply the best overall malware detector.

    All Test results are not a lottery. But those with a very restricted test-bed it is difficult to know how accurate the results are with such a small sample size.

    AV's should be judged on their detection results in a variety of test sites. Test after test, KAV or the KAV clones/KAV-engined AV's are always at or near to the top spot.
     
  11. Blackcat

    Blackcat Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2002
    Posts:
    4,010
    Location:
    Christchurch, UK
    I know that it was considered in the past as an expensive AV. I presume they have brought the prices down to attract more Home users.

    On the main UK site, it is priced at £26 which is equivalent to $48/49. While on the main USA site it is priced at $40.

    The higher UK price is due to the dreaded Value Added Tax.

    But with all these AV's there are cheaper prices around.
     
  12. Ned Slider

    Ned Slider Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2005
    Posts:
    169
    Once you deduct the tax, the prices are virtually identical allowing for small exchange rate fluctuations.

    Ned
     
  13. My questions were rhetorical ones, yes everyone in the universe knows KAV's impressive record yet this record is never questioned even when the test methodology is suspect. If a given AV's results in a bad test methodology are less than expected then the same should be true of KAV which doesnt seem to be the case, so what conclusions does one draw from this, either that bad test methodology only seems to adversely effect some AV's yet doesnt effect the best proggies, mere coincidence? or that any test no matter how flawed has some degree of relevance.
     
  14. Firefighter

    Firefighter Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2002
    Posts:
    1,670
    Location:
    Finland
    You need at least 2..3k RANDOMLY picked samples to evaluate the detection rate of certain Anti-Viruses. In this test, at least F-secure, Kaspersky, Steganos, McAfee and Norton scored 100 % detection, which is too good to be true in REAL life, only GOD scores 100 %.

    When you said that Kaspersky always scores top, it's different thing. It only scores top because it's so damn good in overall detection. Try to pick up a viral collection in the web that is justified as infected by an other av than Kaspersky, then post that to me. There is the reason why Kaspersky scores always the top.

    Best regards,
    Firefighter!
     
  15. Technodrome

    Technodrome Security Expert

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2002
    Posts:
    2,140
    Location:
    New York
    This is the worst AV test I have ever seen. They make their own virus samples and blame avs for missing them. BS. Worse then cnets tests.

    Our test files included some of the most virulent and commonly found viruses, as well as well-known backdoor Trojans and harmful Visual Basic scripts that we generated using well-known virus generation tools.


    tECHNODROME
     
  16. Happy Bytes

    Happy Bytes Guest

    Well...
     

    Attached Files:

  17. Edwin024

    Edwin024 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2004
    Posts:
    1,000
    Has Eset a stand on their let's call it mediocre test result of NOD32 in this mediocre test? ;)
     
  18. Technodrome

    Technodrome Security Expert

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2002
    Posts:
    2,140
    Location:
    New York
    @Mike

    :D :D :D



    tECHNODROME
     
  19. rdsu

    rdsu Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2003
    Posts:
    4,456
    I don't like this kind of reviews madded by magazines...

    The method is stupid, some conclusions doesn't have any logic, etc...

    Unbelievable!
     
    Last edited: Mar 29, 2005
  20. Diver

    Diver Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2005
    Posts:
    1,444
    Location:
    Deep Underwater
    It looks to me like NOD32 was downgraded due to its rather complex interface. This might be a fine interface for a technically minded person, but it presents a major possibility for misconfiguration by a less sophisticated home user. Perhaps in an enterprise environment the IT guys can do the setup and lock out the users. I am not wild about complex interfaces myself. KAV 4.5 was enough to make me scream, and so does NOD32.
     
  21. rdsu

    rdsu Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2003
    Posts:
    4,456
    I love the interface of NOD32 and I have the same as you when you say that for newbies it could be complicated...

    Maybe if they make a simple interface and we can choose between them on installation or after, could be a good solution...
     
  22. Diver

    Diver Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2005
    Posts:
    1,444
    Location:
    Deep Underwater
    I think Avast Pro has a both simple interface and an advanced one. On the free version only the simple interface is available.
     
  23. mikel108

    mikel108 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2004
    Posts:
    1,057
    Location:
    SW Ontario, Canada

    I could not agree more Diver. I trialed NOD32, and liked the low impact, and quick scan. I found that I felt safe with it, and the interface was great (I really like the Green...nudge, nudge Happy Bytes LOL).

    However being an average user, I really got lost in all the settings. If Eset is aiming their product at the techie crowd, then they are bang on for their market.
     
  24. RejZoR

    RejZoR Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2004
    Posts:
    6,426
    Man, how can NOD32 be complicated? Sorry,but you have to be pretty dumb not to understand its interface. You can't just have 1 button to control everything.
    Left side its menu selection where you select its subsystems,update module and main options. On right side,there are detection and scan statistics and controls to stop start specific subsystems. You can also find option button on right side panel which leads to settings for selected subsystem (AMON,IMON,EMON etc).
    Complicated? I don't think so,sorry.
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.