Interesting Antivirus Results..

More comparision?

http://antivirus.nafoto.net

I made test along years... In this site have some results...

 

Does it matter how many samples are used? Shouldn't an AV package pick them up? If not, why not?

 

It would be nice if NOD could detect those, however as it stands NOD can't come anywhere near KAV, Panda, DrWeb or any KAV powered AV.

NOD is a great AV so long as you resign yourself to having to run several other applications resident to make up for it's short comings in malware, worm and trojan detection.

 

Hogwash!

Please see my response here: https://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?t=87833

Cheers,

 

Agreed, it is *always* impt to notice any clues of bias in any so-called test. Although I'm not a NOD-user, I can sympathize because I've often found myself on the defensive with similar "garbage" threads/posts like this one, that attack NAV instead of NOD. The mentality is the same, namely, people do stupid things and make bad assumptions and skew evidence and, on and on .. The fact is {and people who hate one or both of these scanners don't want to hear it}, both NOD and NAV are very good scanners. I have tested on a Gigabyte of samples, and some of my friends with whom I exchange samples, are NOD-users. So I have a good idea of relative strengths and detection capability of the various AV scanners. This test is silly, really, not worthy of anyone's consideration. Who cares if these garbage samples are detected or not?

 

If an AV picked up all known samples, of course sample size wouldn't matter, but they don't. Because all real AV's are somewhat imperfect, the sample size does matter. It matters a lot. I performed a rough analysis here.

Blue

 

What is "hogwash" exactly? If one AV product can catch these things above another then the AV that misses them has to be treated as suspect in it's level of protection does it not?

Todays threats are more often worms, trojans and malware rather than straight forward viruses, does it not make sense that AV's should be covering this trend. KAV is, and doing a good job of it, NOD has a long way to go; I have no doubt that Eset will get there in the end, but as things stand now KAV is a much better product as far as providing protection against the sort of threat the average PC user faces today.

 

No, it does not. Let's face it, AV's only need to protect you against one piece of malware, namely the next one you encounter. In reality, no product can work that way (yet), so they must go beyond that. However, all malware is not created equal. Some malware does bad things to you or your PC, others are marginally annoying, yet some others may not be malware in some users eyes.

To approach these test results with an undiscerning eye as you suggest misses the obvious. A product with lower detection scores, but other desireable attributes, may be a better solution for a given user.

Simply because KAV has higher detection does not mean KAV is a much better product, whatever that means and no, I'm not bashing KAV, I own a current KAV WS 5-pack. It's a decent package, there are a number of decent packages out there. KAV is just one option.

Blue

 

Id rather an AV detects 100% current virus and 0% old viruses than 95% current and 100% old viruses.

 

I don't know who the person was or anything I just found the thread and the site by googling antivirus info. When I read it I was quite surprised at the results being reported and was immediately skeptical based on his opening statements alone. I only posted it here so the people on here could see it for themselves and of course discuss it.

I do not personally put any faith into what he was saying in his post, especially with what was apparently a bias going into it. Again just thought the folks here would like to have seen it.