New Antivirus Test Report By VIRUS.GR

Discussion in 'other anti-virus software' started by tec505, May 11, 2007.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. tec505

    tec505 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2006
    Posts:
    284
    Location:
    Romulus, class M planet
  2. tamdam

    tamdam Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2007
    Posts:
    88
    seems a bit dodgy

    although most of the usual suspects are near the top, norton is suspiciously very low on the list.
     
  3. tec505

    tec505 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2006
    Posts:
    284
    Location:
    Romulus, class M planet
    Antivir hasn't still tested:

    "AntiVir Classic is still being tested (using the same updates of April 22nd) and will be included in the above list as soon as the test finishes. After that, the detailed results of the test will also be published."

    Best regards.
    Mike
     
  4. Firecat

    Firecat Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2005
    Posts:
    7,927
    Location:
    The land of no identity :D
    Something is not clear as to which AVG version VirusP has used in this test. I'm trying to get some info on that. :)

    I mean, there is no such product as "AVG Anti-Malware Professional" :D
     
    Last edited: May 11, 2007
  5. tec505

    tec505 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2006
    Posts:
    284
    Location:
    Romulus, class M planet
    Is F-Prot 6.0.6.3 last official release or is it 6.0.6.4 according to test report?
     
  6. Stefan Kurtzhals

    Stefan Kurtzhals AV Expert

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2003
    Posts:
    701
    I guess he is testing the old version of AntiVir that has the speed problem on malware collections.
     
  7. Technodrome

    Technodrome Security Expert

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2002
    Posts:
    2,140
    Location:
    New York
    6.0.6.4.

    6.0.7.0 was relesed a few days ago.


    tD
     
  8. Firecat

    Firecat Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2005
    Posts:
    7,927
    Location:
    The land of no identity :D
    He is using the latest versions as released on April 22 (or at least it seems that way).

    There are a few things to consider, such as the fact that VirusP's sample set consists of Jokes, Constructors, and DOS viruses which are of little consequence today and will cause a rift in detection rates for some programs (for example, AVG does not give much priority to DOS viruses). VirusP has made some effort to clean his sample set of corrupted files, but it isn't perfect yet.
     
  9. plantextract

    plantextract Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2007
    Posts:
    392
    as always, with virus.gr tests there's something disturbing be, and this is the difference between escan, f-secure and Za7/AVS/KAV 6. the 5% difference for escan is a lot considering that it should use the same engine.
     
  10. bigc73542

    bigc73542 Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2003
    Posts:
    23,873
    Location:
    SW. Oklahoma
    The McAfee they tested is two versions old. How do they expect to have any credibility. Well with me they don't:mad:


    tested version . McAfee version 11.0.213

    current version McAfee Version 11.2.124
     
  11. fax

    fax Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2005
    Posts:
    3,728
    Location:
    localhost
    Is escan using the KAV extended antivirus database?
    Some clones do not implement the full KAV SDK.

    Fax
     
  12. MalwareDie

    MalwareDie Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2006
    Posts:
    500
    Escan does use the extended database. It is just that virus.gr makes bs tests.
     
  13. Firecat

    Firecat Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2005
    Posts:
    7,927
    Location:
    The land of no identity :D
    I think detection database is the same between version 11.0 and 11.2 :)

    As far as detection rate differences between KAV clones are concerned, I personally have seen this happening on Jotti's as well as VirusTotal (upon scanning 100+ files on these 2 online scan services), but I couldn't pin it down to whether this is due to implementation of KAV engine or a bug in Jotti's/VirusTotal. I've seen a few samples that are detected by KAV and not by F-Secure, and I really cannot explain why this happens. It most probably is not due to the fact that F-Secure updates less than KAV because when I examined some of the files detected by KAV on Jotti/VirusTotal and not by F-Secure, I found out that in some cases Kaspersky has had detection for that malware for many months now. :doubt:

    As for eScan, well it has been a long time since I used it, but eScan was based on GDATA AVK's implementation of the KAV engine, with a few changes here and there.

    Since I have personally seen such detection rate differences between KAV and its clones, I am not sure whether this is because VirusP configured the AVs badly. :)
     
  14. fax

    fax Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2005
    Posts:
    3,728
    Location:
    localhost
    Ok thanks,
    Never used escan...

    Looking into their virus database I could not find any "not-a-virus" thread, typical mark of the adware, riskware detection of the KAV extended database...

    EDIT: But now that I recall, in AV-comparatives escan has same detection than KAV... SORRY... I take it back! :D

    Fax
     
  15. C.S.J

    C.S.J Massive Poster

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2006
    Posts:
    5,029
    Location:
    this forum is biased!
    norton is wayyyy too low, this test is junk.

    and as rightly said, too much differences between av's with the exact same engine.

    my drweb is only ONE percent behind nortons detection, we all know this cant be right, but doesnt bother me :)
     
  16. tec505

    tec505 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2006
    Posts:
    284
    Location:
    Romulus, class M planet
    I complitely agree.
    It's very strange this result. Norton, according to Pcworld is a great AV.

    Very strange.
     
  17. Firecat

    Firecat Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2005
    Posts:
    7,927
    Location:
    The land of no identity :D
    In the past, NAV has had very good detection rates at virus.gr, I'll try to find out what happened this time.
     
  18. Firefighter

    Firefighter Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2002
    Posts:
    1,670
    Location:
    Finland
    Or, actually only these vendors were "submitting" samples to the tester.

    > The 147184 virus samples were chosen using VS2000 according to Kaspersky, F-Prot, Nod32, Dr.Web, BitDefender and McAfee antivirus programs. Each virus sample was unique by virus name, meaning that AT LEAST 1 antivirus program detected it as a new virus.

    So, they have got some advantage! :cool:

    Best regards,
    Firefighter!
     
  19. Firecat

    Firecat Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2005
    Posts:
    7,927
    Location:
    The land of no identity :D
    I believe those specific scanners were used in order to sort the sample set and weed out garbage. But I'm not sure about this. However, these same scanners were used in all previous tests and yet NAV used to do very well in past tests. :doubt:
     
  20. Graystoke

    Graystoke Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2003
    Posts:
    1,502
    Location:
    The San Joaquin Valley, California
    I don't quite understand. If BullGuard 7 uses the BitDefender engine, why doesn't it have the same results as BitDefender 10? Really surprised by Ashampoo's showing. I don't think I've ever seen it at the top of any list. Is it using Avira's engine?
     
  21. bigc73542

    bigc73542 Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2003
    Posts:
    23,873
    Location:
    SW. Oklahoma

    There is a difference in the scan engines in the two versions of McAfee. 11.0 and 11.2.;)
     
  22. Firecat

    Firecat Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2005
    Posts:
    7,927
    Location:
    The land of no identity :D
    Yes :D

    But due to various defects within the program, I do not recommend it just yet.
     
  23. Firefighter

    Firefighter Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2002
    Posts:
    1,670
    Location:
    Finland
    I think that you already know that it's the same thing if some av-vendors were submitting those tested samples to the tester or those tested samples were verified as infected by some av-vendors. :D That's why in my mind ALL big av-tests are flawed in sort of away because they do one of these. ;) The good test in my mind is only that when you pick RANDOMLY a large amount of NEW infected samples (10k +) and you are testing by yourself that they are really infected. :cool:

    Best regards,
    Firefighter!
     
  24. EliteKiller

    EliteKiller Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2007
    Posts:
    1,138
    Location:
    TX
    AVG Anti-Malware version 7.5.465
     
  25. Seishin

    Seishin Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2006
    Posts:
    204
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.