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

Discussion in 'other anti-virus software' started by Valentin_Pletzer, Jan 22, 2008.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. s4u

    s4u Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2007
    Posts:
    441
    don't worry we all know these are just tests
     
  2. IBK

    IBK AV Expert

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2003
    Posts:
    1,856
    Location:
    Innsbruck (Austria)
    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".
     
  3. computer geek

    computer geek Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2007
    Posts:
    776
    i'v never seen a recent test where m:oops: c:oops: a:oops: f:oops: e:oops: e:oops: gets over 95%. :(
     
  4. C.S.J

    C.S.J Massive Poster

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2006
    Posts:
    5,029
    Location:
    this forum is biased!
    sorry IBK, but im still confused about why the ratings are dropped. o_O

    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? ;)
     
  5. Macstorm

    Macstorm Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2005
    Posts:
    2,631
    Location:
    Sneffels volcano
    Thanks for the heads up, Valentin.

    I like the results :D
     
  6. SystemJunkie

    SystemJunkie Resident Conspiracy Theorist

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2006
    Posts:
    1,500
    Location:
    Germany
    No surprise for at least one year avast belongs to the leading avs straight behind AntiVir ;-)
     
  7. bellgamin

    bellgamin Very Frequent Poster

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2002
    Posts:
    6,698
    Location:
    Hawaii
    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.:thumb:
     
  8. s4u

    s4u Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2007
    Posts:
    441
    It sure looks like BitDefener is getting better and better
     
  9. apm

    apm Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2006
    Posts:
    162
    eTrust-VET ++
    ++ = sehr gut (0 False-Positives)
     
  10. apm

    apm Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2006
    Posts:
    162
    there are quite different between av-test & av-comparatives results for Nod32 & Avasto_O :cautious:
     
  11. dawgg

    dawgg Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2006
    Posts:
    818
    Methodology and malware samples used make a difference :)
     
  12. Sjoeii

    Sjoeii Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2006
    Posts:
    1,240
    Location:
    52?18'51.59"N + 4?56'32.13"O
    That's immediately the only positive thing about the program
     
  13. Kees1958

    Kees1958 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2006
    Posts:
    5,857
    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 :isay:
     
  14. jrmhng

    jrmhng Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2007
    Posts:
    1,268
    Location:
    Australia
    Yea as in no fps but low detection too hehe
     
  15. Xenophobe

    Xenophobe Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 26, 2007
    Posts:
    174
    AV-Comparatives tests AntiVir Premium.
     
  16. Kees1958

    Kees1958 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2006
    Posts:
    5,857
    Thanks, that is my point: from Avira's site (free=classic, paid = premuim):

    http://www.free-av.com/
     

    Attached Files:

  17. Xenophobe

    Xenophobe Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 26, 2007
    Posts:
    174
    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. :p
     
  18. Stijnson

    Stijnson Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2007
    Posts:
    533
    Location:
    Paranoia Heaven
    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)?
     
  19. Kees1958

    Kees1958 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2006
    Posts:
    5,857
    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.
     
  20. dawgg

    dawgg Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2006
    Posts:
    818
    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.
     
  21. saffron

    saffron Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2007
    Posts:
    82
    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. :cool:
     
  22. xandros

    xandros Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2006
    Posts:
    411
    i change today my antivirus
    i remove dr.web antivirus
    and i put avira antivir antivirus premium
    i love the good detection
     
  23. trjam

    trjam Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2006
    Posts:
    9,102
    Location:
    North Carolina USA
    Smart choice.;)
     
  24. IBK

    IBK AV Expert

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2003
    Posts:
    1,856
    Location:
    Innsbruck (Austria)
    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.
     
  25. TonyW

    TonyW Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2005
    Posts:
    2,741
    Location:
    UK
    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.
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.