New Malware-Test results

Discussion in 'other anti-virus software' started by Firecat, Jul 4, 2007.

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

    Firecat Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2005
    Posts:
    7,927
    Location:
    The land of no identity :D
    New test results from Malware-test Lab are up after lots and lots of delays. More results expected soon because of delays caused for some scanners due to "exceptionally poor scan speed"...They were speaking about a revised methodology of testing for this latest test, but I haven't checked it out yet.

    If anyone's interested, here you go:

    http://www.malware-test.com/

    Still reading the PDF now, will comment later.
     
  2. Sjoeii

    Sjoeii Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2006
    Posts:
    1,240
    Location:
    52?18'51.59"N + 4?56'32.13"O
    Looks interesting, thanx
     
  3. ASpace

    ASpace Guest

    How can AOL AVS score more that Kaspersky ? Or anyone imagine Clam to be higher than Panda , NOD32 , BitDefender , Avast .

    These are complete crap !
     
  4. cupez80

    cupez80 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2005
    Posts:
    605
    Location:
    Surabaya Indonesia
    The result is weird :D too weird...
     
  5. plantextract

    plantextract Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2007
    Posts:
    392
    don't even ask :D
     
  6. Inspector Clouseau

    Inspector Clouseau AV Expert

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2006
    Posts:
    1,329
    Location:
    Maidenhead, UK
    Please don't tell me that they determine the scan speed based on the virus test set :eek:
     
  7. Stefan Kurtzhals

    Stefan Kurtzhals AV Expert

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2003
    Posts:
    701
    They obviously do. Hey, I like our scan speed. :cool:
     
  8. rdsu

    rdsu Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2003
    Posts:
    4,456
    So ridiculous... :D
     
  9. trjam

    trjam Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2006
    Posts:
    9,057
    Location:
    North Carolina
    well I think we should all remain, "objective" about this.:rolleyes: ;)
     
  10. Jadda

    Jadda Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2007
    Posts:
    425
    Wierd test. Scan speed?!
     
  11. EliteKiller

    EliteKiller Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2007
    Posts:
    1,138
    Location:
    TX
    One of many observations.........

    NOD32 pwned by Clam and eTrust? :eek: o_O :rolleyes:

    Seriously, malware-test needs to stop publishing garbage and wasting everyones time.
     
  12. pykko

    pykko Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2005
    Posts:
    2,236
    Location:
    Romania...and walking to heaven
    honeypot = damaged malwares and the testing details are not published. It's not at all trustful.
     
  13. RogerC

    RogerC Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2007
    Posts:
    9
    Have you read test report (PDF file)? You can see KAV's product version (6.0.0.303) is lower than AOL (6.0.0.308 ), you can ask KAV why it causes different test result.
     
    Last edited: Jul 4, 2007
  14. RogerC

    RogerC Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2007
    Posts:
    9
    What detailed information?
     
  15. bellgamin

    bellgamin Very Frequent Poster

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2002
    Posts:
    5,650
    Location:
    Hawaii
    Frik: "Hey -- DrWeb did rather well!"

    Frak: "You're silly -- DrWeb isn't even on the list."

    Frik: "That's exactly my point." :cautious:
     
  16. dawgg

    dawgg Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2006
    Posts:
    817
    Well, dont really have to ask KAV... can ask someone here... maybe diffrent results because the AVs were updated at slightly diffrent times... looks like AOL-AVS was updated a little while after KAV was. :D
     
    Last edited: Jul 4, 2007
  17. MalwareDie

    MalwareDie Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2006
    Posts:
    500
    I cannot even read the pdf.
     
  18. MalwareDie

    MalwareDie Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2006
    Posts:
    500
    Load of bull if Fortinet is at or near the top.
     
  19. Macstorm

    Macstorm Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2005
    Posts:
    2,531
    Location:
    Sneffels volcano
    Is that bad Fortinet? Latest av-comparatives test shows it at same level as F-Prot..
     
  20. pykko

    pykko Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2005
    Posts:
    2,236
    Location:
    Romania...and walking to heaven
    Fortinet has a very bad heuristic engine... very many FPs. And perhaps they managed to reach this level due to this thing.
     
  21. C.S.J

    C.S.J Massive Poster

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2006
    Posts:
    5,029
    Location:
    this forum is biased!
    nah, its correct that fortinet is at the top, because it flags everything and anything has a virus.
     
  22. Londonbeat

    Londonbeat Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2006
    Posts:
    350
    Given that all malware in this test was collected using honeypot, I think that there's a chance a fair amount of these files may be corrupted like you said above. I've read that Fortinet flags a lot of corrupted files as suspicious. A high number of corrupted files would also possibly explain why AV's such as NOD (emulation) scored lower than expected. I'm no AV expert so I could be wrong, plus we don't know what, if any, checks have been made to see how functional the test bed is.

    Londonbeat
     
  23. C.S.J

    C.S.J Massive Poster

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2006
    Posts:
    5,029
    Location:
    this forum is biased!
    nod is a weird AV, ive always found its detection poor until ive tried to unzip or actually run the file, then it alerts me and deletes it.

    either way it doesnt bother me, but ive always found nod32 weird that way.
     
  24. The One

    The One Frequent Poster

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2007
    Posts:
    246
    This test is a total fake...
    There are too much weird conclusions in it
     
  25. The_Duality

    The_Duality Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Posts:
    276
    Location:
    Liverpool, UK
    I dont trust these results... but then again, tests such as this hardly display real-world performance characteristics. Considering both AVS and KIS were tested, and the versions of both are waaaaay behind what is currently available... I dont think much thought went into this.
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.