Ikarus becoming No 1 detection engine ?

Discussion in 'other anti-virus software' started by dr pan k, May 29, 2010.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. dr pan k

    dr pan k Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2007
    Posts:
    204
  2. progress

    progress Guest

    I agree BUT: Don't forget that you will get a lot of FP with Ikarus engine :rolleyes:
     
  3. NoIos

    NoIos Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2009
    Posts:
    607
    They have done a great job indeed. Some will talk about a higher number of false positives in comparison to other engines. In any case I support Ikarus and the choice of Emsisoft to use their engine.
     
  4. King Grub

    King Grub Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2006
    Posts:
    814
    You obviously can't trust "Shadowserver" statistics. Look at G Data for example - always below 10%, sometimes, 1-2% detection rate. This is not the case. So why should the other numbers be correct.
     
  5. sg09

    sg09 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2009
    Posts:
    2,713
    Location:
    Kolkata, India
    True, but A2/Ikarus shows predominance at elsewhere too.
     
  6. dr pan k

    dr pan k Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2007
    Posts:
    204
    though im not a great fun of the various testing organizations, virus bulletin also ranks ikarus among the best : http://www.virusbtn.com/vb100/rap-index.xml

    i believe that in the near future we ll be listening alot about ikarus
     
  7. AvinashR

    AvinashR Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2009
    Posts:
    2,060
    Location:
    New Delhi Metallo β-Lactamase 1
    Ikaraus is under my review list...You guys will soon gonna read a review on it...

    Right now me suffering from fever...So no updates on anything :(
     
  8. progress

    progress Guest

    Get well soon! :'(
     
  9. AvinashR

    AvinashR Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2009
    Posts:
    2,060
    Location:
    New Delhi Metallo β-Lactamase 1
    Trying to recover without AV's, BB, HIPS and all...Its a heat-stroke:(

    BTW Vexira is above GDATA and BitDefender...What a joke:D
     
  10. geko

    geko Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2008
    Posts:
    35
    I'm not sure, but maybe these virus are new and they are trying the engine, not the signature database.

    Maybe this is a representation of the effectiveness of the engine.

    Probably these results change in hours or a day, because they are added quickly by the AV companies.

    There should be a study to see which AV's add virus signatures quicker...

    I'm not sure if I explained myself well.
     
  11. sg09

    sg09 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2009
    Posts:
    2,713
    Location:
    Kolkata, India
    Vexira..!! You mean this? Is it good? Last time I tried it it was not compatible with Vista. Which engine it uses?

    I understand you very well. That's a very important point. Quickness in adding signature after being reported. But there is a downside in this tests. This will vary with the frequency of release of new malwares.

    In my personal view Dr.Web and Rising are quick in that respect. Unbelievable huh!! May be their detection is lagging due a lack of users and connections. After them Avast, Bitdefender, Avira, Emsisoft. Kaspersky is not that quick. I can't tell about others.
     
  12. funkydude

    funkydude Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2004
    Posts:
    6,851
    This has been discussed before. Again, this data is not accurate at all. Just look at GData. 8.70%? Just no.
     
  13. AvinashR

    AvinashR Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2009
    Posts:
    2,060
    Location:
    New Delhi Metallo β-Lactamase 1
    Supported Operating Systems
    Microsoft® Windows 98 Second Edition
    Microsoft® Windows Me
    Microsoft® Windows NT 4.0 Workstation with Service Pack 3 or above
    Microsoft® Windows 2000 Professional
    Microsoft® Windows XP Home and Professional
    Microsoft® Windows Vista (all editions)
    Microsoft® Windows Windows 7 (all editions)

    And if you ask me then i will suggest you to stay away from it...:D
     
  14. 0strodamus

    0strodamus Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2009
    Posts:
    1,047
    Location:
    United Surveillance States
    Thanks for posting the link. I wonder why they are using Linux versions for the majority of the scanners and what impact that has on the results for those of us using Windows?

    All of their software was donated and they are sharing missed binaries with the vendors, so there must be someone from each of these companies that thinks the tests are relevant.
     
    Last edited: May 29, 2010
  15. Blackcat

    Blackcat Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2002
    Posts:
    4,010
    Location:
    Christchurch, UK
    Installed Ikarus; first time I have had a look at it in nearly 2 years. Picked up Norton’s tool as an AV!

    “Fast” scan was not particularly fast; probably on par with Kaspersky, AntiVir on this machine. At least there were no false positives picked up.
     

    Attached Files:

  16. Blackcat

    Blackcat Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2002
    Posts:
    4,010
    Location:
    Christchurch, UK
    Felt very light in real-time; must have good caching.
     

    Attached Files:

  17. Blackcat

    Blackcat Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2002
    Posts:
    4,010
    Location:
    Christchurch, UK
    Picked up all of the malware I exposed it to, but it was a very small sample size. In addition, there have been reports in the past that Ikarus carries out very few sample analyses themselves but appear to add signatures if they are detected by another vendor.

    Overall, they may have a good detection rate but IMHO, particularly on cost grounds there are much better AV alternatives. 40 Euros for a standalone AV package seems to be a very steep price to pay!
     

    Attached Files:

  18. Blackcat

    Blackcat Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2002
    Posts:
    4,010
    Location:
    Christchurch, UK
    I would also take Shadowserver's results with a pinch of salt; honeypots are known for their corrupted files and there is no testing for functionality.

    However, Ikarus scores well on a variety of sites and purely on detection abilities it would be a good choice for an AV.
     
  19. sg09

    sg09 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2009
    Posts:
    2,713
    Location:
    Kolkata, India
    Thanks for the review BlackCat.
    For few false positive detections, it is the only one in VT logs that detect that. So, this
    may not be true anymore

    @AvinashR: I have already tested that a year back.:p Not impressive at all...:mad:
     
  20. kjdemuth

    kjdemuth Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2005
    Posts:
    2,960
    Location:
    Boston, MA
    Thats why you buy it with Emsisoft 5 or OA++. Both of those employ the Ikarus AV engine.
     
  21. skokospa

    skokospa Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2009
    Posts:
    177
    Location:
    Srbija
    great software ... as I noted in the use of 6 months had no FP...I hope that soon anti-spam engine...and the new AV engine ....
     
  22. falkor

    falkor Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2009
    Posts:
    205
    No need to review this . It has been reviewed many times over . Consistantly good . False Positives have really been reduced over the years .:cool:
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.