Home few antivirus comparaison

Yes, I thank you too Cadoul for taking the time to make this test. We can only make generalised comments as to how an AV performs, based on multiple professional tests. I do, however, appreciate your efforts

 

Actually, with respect to the notion of controlled vs. uncontrolled testing, it is quite apropos, and that was direction of my comments. It wasn't a rationalization, it was my comment on the a portion of the content of this thread. No more, no less.

If you'd like to discuss some of the technical issues involved, I'd direct you to the links contained in my previous post.

Blue

 

I knew it was imperfect. but it's intersting to have a look on different AV programs.
I never got conclusions on products.
I just note the results.
I never want to compare that job to the profesional ones.

Sincerely,
Cadoul From France (my apologizes for my english).

 

Hello,

The comment by the Eset Moderator obviously was made as a hurtful, not as a helpful, comment. To extract any substantive, reasonable implications from such a pejorative outburst is to rationalize its content.

And thank you for directing me to your previous posts on the matter.

 

I can understand and I'm sorry if I was 'flamey' before. I wanted to convey that no AV can be decided as good or bad based on a single test. If any AV does not do well on multiple professional and non-professional tests, then we can say that it is bad.

Sorry again for any bad behaviour I caused.

 

I welcome any test results as long as we know the test criteria (which you provided - a home test). Please don't be put off by any negative posts and let us know any other tests you do.

Any chance you can test the free AVs (AVG, Avast, Anti Vir) ?

 

I second that. I would be very interesting in seeing some further tests, however, what I'm missing is more details about the methodology used for testing.

To be honest, a serious testing cannot be based just on samples picked up by one or more AV scanners. From my personal experience, I have come across hundreds of files picked up by the greates players which were actually corrupted or non-functional. What really got me was that a week ago I'd got a file which was flagged by 4 AV programs as a variant of Spybanker just because of a function called Bank...(something) inside of its code.
If you are doing some testing, please do not forget to test the files in the sample set for functionality first (though this is not the only thing that should be checked before testing, but it's very important). I for one would take it unfair if an AV which detects corrupted files or reports false positives is proclaimed better than the AV which did not detect them.

 

So you did submit this file ? I did take a look at it and it was not malicious at all. It just contains 'Banker' in the included XHTML files which were compressed via a self extracting RAR. I think Marcos did answer you via email

 

Here's an analogy based on true-life person...
Fran Tarkenton always worked real hard with the rookie quarterbacks during pre-season & pre-game training sessions. Those rookies all wanted to replace Fran. Even so, he never snatched the ball out of a rookie's hands, or employed sarcasm or belittlement. Instead, it was clear to all who watched that Fran was making every effort to teach those rookies every one of his skills, & to share all the know-how he had acquired from years of experience.

To me, Fran manifested the main attributes of a true professional: (a) The fervent desire to teach others his skills. (b) An obvious joy in welcoming those who desired to learn his profession. (c) The leadership to know that praise (when due) should be given publicly, & correction (when due) should be done in private. (d) The self-confidence to build-up newcomers, rather than tear them down or belittle their efforts.

I love Wilders because there are so many *true* professionals here, such as Blackspear, Paul, JimIT, Blackcat, Bubba, LowWaterMark, BigC, & many others. Many of us here are seeking to learn. Wilders is a GREAT place to learn. It would be sad if any such person were made hesitant to try something new or ask a question because of apprehension that they would be subjected to ridicule.

 

Hi all,

I am glad to see the forum members respond so professionally to the initial positing and the subsequent comments. Thanks Cadoul for sharing with us your results, and thanks all for the additional helpful comments.

Rich

 

New results.
Updates:04/12/05.
Panda Platinum 7.04---------------------------21006
DrWeb 4.32b----------------------------------22891
AVG Pro 7.0308-------------------------------20713

Sincerely
Cadoul

 

Cadoul, will you also test Norman Virus Control, Avast & etrust EZ 2005?

 

Small problem is arising here. Not being a virusscanner testing expert, I need to have more information. Are the tests representative, meaning that the signatures are equally recent to test for virusses in a normalized manner? Or is the age of signatures in this test onf no importance to the testresults? Are all virusses really different, or are they only different version? Are there fake virusses?

Although I too appreciate all effort, (thank you for your work), a second problem is that many rely on testresults to make decisions on downloading, using and purchasing tools like this. Resulting in many headaches for security managers, like myself, to answer the question why we don't use the number 1 scanner, as indicated by test xyz, or review in magazine abc.
I repeatedly have to answer that there are more criteria to judge the scanners by, than just the detection rate (we need central management, low impact of distribution of signatures, ease of use etc.).

So, you just test, but to me it's just another nice to have and not a need to. Just like I don't care to see another crash test, how interesting the results may be. There are more criteria to choose a car than just these test results.

 

Hi,

Thanks for all of your work and sharing your results. What would be interesting to see is if running any of the AVs alongside a real-time AT (e.g. Ewido, BOClean), improves the results and my how much.

Thanks again.

Rich

 

I guess it's last result. Too many people think i'am not serious.
i'am not an expert. i do my best. i just want to share the result of an idea.
Thanks for yours comments.

Updates:04/13/05.
Avast 4.6---------------------------21112
F-Prot 3.16b------------------------21857

Sincerely,
Cadoul

 

Panda is somewhat below what I expected

 

Some of us are grateful for your hard work and in sharing your results.

Keep on testing

 

Yes Cadoul, keep on testing, please.

 

i third that! very interested to see whatever results you'd like to post, thanks.

 

Cadoul,

I only speak for myself. I assume you're quite serious, and there is no problem not being an expert. I don't consider myself an expert. Uncontrolled tests do tell you something, it's just not always clear what is being said. Small differences that you see may be true. Large differences that you see are potentially true.

If I look at your tests, KAV and KAV-engined are at the top, this is generally true in most tests. So this is consistent with professional tests and most of our experience.

NOD32 comes in on par with McAfee Enterprise and somewhat above McAfee home versions. Most tests I watch and anecdotal comment have McAfee (both types) on par with KAV. I'm a NOD32 user so I watch where it comes. Typically it is below McAfee on a demand test.

NOD is in the same league as Bitdefender - this seems to be a typical result.

Norton in all flavors is trailing the pack. I am not a NAV fan, but this is a rather unusual result. Say what you will about NAV, the detection engine is excellent. This is a very unusual placement relative to all others.

AVG trails the pack by a bit - again fairly typical. I really don't pay attention to Panda, so can't say a whole lot their. I'll skip the remaining ones tested.

In summary, I see the results span a range in files identified. KAV is in the top tier while NAV is in the bottom tier. Most tests that I watch place both in the top tier. The results are as you report, no question there, but given this breakdown a reasonable question to ask to whether the testbed is representative of the malware world, or as put more precisely in this reference, is the testbed fair?

I realize that you've expended an enormous effort in pulling this information together and I also appreciate that you've shared it with us. I hope you continue to share with the forum. However, appreciating what you've done should not disqualify me from wondering of the quantitative or even rank ordering significance of the results. Amidst all the comment in this thread, I see no discussion of what the results appear to say or whether they are consistent with other available tests. Personally, I find this both unfortunate and somewhat amazing since that should be the focus of the entire discussion.

Since both my own motivations and contributions to this thread have been viewed as suspect, I'll refrain from further comment here, save for refocusing discussion if needed. I do believe reader of this or any thread should view the content with a critical eye and comment accordingly. That's how we all learn. At least that's what I try to do, certainly with varying success.

Blue

 

"NOD is in the same league as Bitdefender - this seems to be a typical result"

Now this makes my decision EVEN tougher - BD for price, NOD for heuristics.

 

Thank you, Cadoul, for your interesting test information. Someone else mentioned Antivir. I'd be interested in how well it does too.

 

I don't think so -- certainly not by me. To me, you are *true blue*.

shalom.... bellgamin

 

If you do decide to carry on... could you perhaps run the tests with ClamAV:

ClamWin v0.83 (http://www.clamwin.com)

Note: ClamWin isn't using the very latest ClamAV engine and no doubt won't do too well in the dos stakes... but interesting still..

Thanks for your work,

Steve

 

Hi,


AV test is real job for experts and professionals, especially because it requires a scientific methodology.
And those tests are interesting for consumers and could help to avoid bad products with pretentious marketing.

In all case, thks for your effert Cadoul.

Here's some others tests and reviews:

*http://www.blocus-zone.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=601 (2004, in french)

In english: go to the home page and click on "go" (English language).
Then on the left, just click on "Benchmark antivirus perso".

* http://www.schadentech.com/Reviews/Antivirus/antivirus_roundup.htm

*AVs reviews by Cnet:
http://reviews.cnet.com/4520-3513_7-5553401-1.html?tag=cnetfd.wk

Regards