New proactive/response time av-test.org test published

Hi,

AV-test.org just published the results of a test that have been presented at the last VB Conference. Two topics are addressed by these tests : proactive detection and outbreak response time. 24 different AVs have been included in these tests.

Proactive detection have been tested using the "retrospective testing method" (new malware vs. old scanners), on a dataset of 100 ITW malwares, and over a period of 5 month.

Average Outbreak response time has been measured from 45 virus outbreaks that occured in 2004. It is a measure of the time taken between the first detection of a worm by a scanner and the detection by other scanners.

For the "proactive detection" category, Norman VC scored first, detecting 39% of the worms on the first test (the first month), followed by McAffee (30%). Trend detected none (0%) during this first test.

For the outbreak response time, BitDefender and KAV are the best, with a response time lower than 4 hours in average (more than 14 hours for the VET engine of eTrust and Symantec Intelligent Updates).

There are also some other interesting statistics :
- In 8 month the average growth rate for the signature database is 24.3% (ranges from 10.3% for Norman to 36.1% for Panda).
- Concerning worms that "drop" other malware, only 7 out of 24 AV vendors always published signatures for both the dropper and the dropped component in a short time frame, Panda and Antivir being the best at this game.
- Many other interesting things (inside the ppt presentation).

The powerpoint presentation is available here :

http://www.av-test.org/sites/references_papers.php3?lang=de

According to AV-Test.org, the XLS sheets containing all the statistics should be published in a "near future".

Edit:
-----
Direct link to the .zip archive containing the .ppt presentation :

http://www.av-test.org/down/papers/2004-09_vb_2004.zip