MKS(online)vsNorman(ondemand)vsKAV(ondemand)

Discussion in 'other anti-virus software' started by lynchknot, Aug 29, 2004.

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

    lynchknot Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2004
    Posts:
    904
    Location:
    SW WA
    This is my result from that disk with 593 live viruses floating around the net. I'm just wondering what KAV defines as known and virus bodies. Are the "known" identified viruses and the rest are through heuristics? - seem logical but these, I think, are all supposed to be known.
     

    Attached Files:

    Last edited: Aug 29, 2004
  2. hbkh

    hbkh Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2004
    Posts:
    128
    Location:
    Ohio, USA
    Are you refering to the open thread about this at the neowin forums? (if so, keep in mind the total number of actual viruses is under dispute. They say 6 in the archive are actually clean and a few other are joke or hoax exes. The archive is named 455VIREN.zip for reference.)

    Best wishes,
    hbkh
     
  3. lynchknot

    lynchknot Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2004
    Posts:
    904
    Location:
    SW WA
    yes, that's the one. Which AV in my screenshot, do you think, got the closest result then? Maybe MKS with the least amount of FP (but way too many if indeed 455)
     
  4. hbkh

    hbkh Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2004
    Posts:
    128
    Location:
    Ohio, USA
    Heres the problem, nobody was able to confirm without a doubt how many of those samples were actually live, they know atleast six for sure were dead, but other than that who knows? The total file count was 594 so you shouldn't have got more than that and we know six were dead samples so really you shouldn't have got any more than a MAX of 588. Which if you look at the many screen shots in that thread that's exactly what many people were getting. But for an av choice Kaspersky is always a safe bet. :)

    Good luck!

    PS. just a side note, keep in mind your dealing with ~588 LIVE virues and to take caution accordingly when testing with such.
     
  5. lynchknot

    lynchknot Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2004
    Posts:
    904
    Location:
    SW WA
    Thanks Hbkh. From the looks of this test Norman isn't too shabby as well. I like to have a different (sandbox) technology as a backup.
     
  6. kloshar

    kloshar Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2003
    Posts:
    279
    Location:
    Europe, Slovenia, Bre?ice
    Norman seems to be great antivirus program, with great and strong detection of its heuristics.

    And does Norman really have the best resoults in your scanning test? :)
     
  7. Firefighter

    Firefighter Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2002
    Posts:
    1,670
    Location:
    Finland
  8. lynchknot

    lynchknot Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2004
    Posts:
    904
    Location:
    SW WA
    Thank you Firefghter. I guess I missed your post. Will/can you direct me to a worthwhile, up to date test file?
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.