new results from AV-Test.org (Q1/2008)

don't worry we all know these are just tests

 

because number of files do not contain as much info as you may think, it depends from the kind of files. it makes a difference if 10 millions of files are used consisting of various kind of files (like txt files, pictures, videos like on a normal PC) or if only 10000 files are used but they are all programs likely to trigger a false alarm and were somehow "preselected".

 

i'v never seen a recent test where m c a f e e gets over 95%.

 

sorry IBK, but im still confused about why the ratings are dropped.

the figures of fp's are not alot, and if rumors are true... that you use alot more than 65k in your set of clean files, it just seems very... erm ... petty.

yeah / no, maybe?

 

Thanks for the heads up, Valentin.

I like the results

 

No surprise for at least one year avast belongs to the leading avs straight behind AntiVir ;-)

 

BitDefender & Avira -- verrrry impressive!

DrWeb & VBA32 - sob

NOD - hmmmm

@IBK - my sincere thanks for your very illuminating & commendably impartial comments in this thread. You brought light to the dimness.

 

It sure looks like BitDefener is getting better and better

 

eTrust-VET ++
++ = sehr gut (0 False-Positives)

 

there are quite different between av-test & av-comparatives results for Nod32 & Avast

 

Methodology and malware samples used make a difference

 

That's immediately the only positive thing about the program

 

What does not surprise me is that different test sets will generate different test results.

What does surprise me is when Wilders members claim that Antivir (FREE) is a better AV than Avast FREE, based on for instance AV-comparatives test.

In these claims they do not take into account that the free version of Antivir misses the Anti Spyware fingerprints (same applies to AVG). So when Antivir Free would be compared against Avast Free using a testset containing a lot of anti-spyware/malware, then Antivir problably would score considerably lower, beacuse Avast free includes the AS/Malware fingerprints.

The discussion on Wilders Forum would not focus on the added value of buying Antivir Paid, but on the validity of the test. Help

 

Yea as in no fps but low detection too hehe

 

AV-Comparatives tests AntiVir Premium.

 

Thanks, that is my point: from Avira's site (free=classic, paid = premuim):

http://www.free-av.com/

 

Sorry, I'd misread your post and thought you meant only basing it on AV-Comparative's results.
But yes, Avira Free doesn't have spyware/adware protection. Their nagscreen really likes to remind you.

 

What does it exactly mean if NOD scores lower on 'signature detection'? That too few signatures are added or that the signatures in their updates aren't good enough (not detecting the viruses properly)?

 

Yes, but with Vista (file) security options or XPFSE (Fajo XP File Security Extention) it is easy to by pass. Another great tool to compensate in XP Home for policy editor is ACLView of native computer systems.

 

Source: http://www.itservices.manchester.ac.uk/antivirus/whatis/glossary/

Having a low signature detection isnt necessarily bad. Antiviruses may emphasis on Heuristics more than on signatures which can also aid detecting malware.

Thats why its better to look at overall detection rather than just signatures.

 

These are the wild fantasy figures of Antony "At Least 1 Scanner Identifies Every File In My Collection As A Virus" Petrakis.

Not even a team of 500 full time virus researchers can confirm five and a half million samples as malware in 1 year.

It is impossible unless VirusP is working with AV-Test.org and he gave Marx the 5,490,960 real new samples.

I will much rather believe F-Secure than Andreas "Hype Is My Middle Name" Marx.

Please direct me to a "not flawed" test by Andreas Marx.

Such a test exists only in his own megalomanic mind.

 

i change today my antivirus
i remove dr.web antivirus
and i put avira antivir antivirus premium
i love the good detection

 

Smart choice.

 

Marx is not hyping at all when he says 1 million samples in 6 months. Marx wrote somehwere he gets ~2300 new samples per hour, so 1 million in 6 months looks very low (would be 1,6 millions in 1 month).
You also misunderstood what F-Secure wrote. F-Secure did not write that they found 500000 new samples in 2007, they said that they reached 500000 sigantures in the period of 1986-2007. In 2007 they added ~250000 signatures. As said, number of signature or virus records has not much to do with how many malware (variants) are out there.

 

As I said previously, those figures relate to the signature count, which when broken down will be much higher than that. It's the methodology of the count that determines how much they, Kaspersky or indeed any other AV vendor say are in their records. As far as F-Secure/Kaspersky is concerned, the actual malware count is much, much higher than 500,000 if one computes the variants separately.