New test from Anti-Malware.ru

Discussion in 'other anti-virus software' started by progress, Jan 9, 2009.

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

    Murack Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2008
    Posts:
    23
    Location:
    Italy, Sicily
    here?
    http://www.anti-malware-test.com/?q=node/54

    sorry, but I do not see it... :(
     
  2. Thankful

    Thankful Savings Monitor

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2005
    Posts:
    5,459
    Location:
    New York City
  3. Murack

    Murack Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2008
    Posts:
    23
    Location:
    Italy, Sicily
  4. Baz_kasp

    Baz_kasp Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 1, 2008
    Posts:
    593
    Location:
    London
    It's a nice insight...notice that all AV's were used on default settings so if you were to tweak it a bit and notch up the settings (e.g. interactive as opposed to automatic HIPS mode, extra detection categories) then they would probably have scored higher.
     
  5. fce

    fce Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2007
    Posts:
    758
    let me first congratulate the winner.....congratz KIS! :thumb:
     
  6. subset

    subset Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2007
    Posts:
    825
    Location:
    Austria
    o_O ...congratz DefenseWall :thumb:
     
  7. LoneWolf

    LoneWolf Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2006
    Posts:
    3,623


    Yeah, I'd have to say the winner of that test was indeed DefenseWall.
     
  8. Baz_kasp

    Baz_kasp Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 1, 2008
    Posts:
    593
    Location:
    London

    Defensewall isn't an AV...or a suite... plus it was noted on the article:

    ...as opposed to automatic/semi automatic handling of malware compared with traditional av products or suites.

    I think that is what they meant when they said KIS is the winner.
     
  9. subset

    subset Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2007
    Posts:
    825
    Location:
    Austria
    @ Baz_kasp

    Is the interactive mode of KIS (like you advised in post #29 for higher score) easier to handle than DW?

    Cheers
     
  10. Baz_kasp

    Baz_kasp Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 1, 2008
    Posts:
    593
    Location:
    London

    No idea. Haven't used DW!
     
  11. LoneWolf

    LoneWolf Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2006
    Posts:
    3,623
    This is correct, but it was included in the test and scored higher then the others.

    Also this is why I use DW, because it is not an AV or a Suite.
    DW's protection surpasses any av out there.
    But one must use what one is comfortable with.
     
  12. format_c

    format_c Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2008
    Posts:
    116
    ROTFL. did you expect the another winner?

    anti-malware.ru belongs to the KasperskyLabs employee Iliya Shabanov used to learn an astrophysics but working in marketting division of KL. and there is one brigand there from an labourers' block of big city. kewl situation ;)
     
  13. GES/POR

    GES/POR Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2006
    Posts:
    1,490
    Location:
    Armacham
    This is the way to go, testing on default settings and vendors will crank up their defaults n make damn well sure they dont affect resources usage us much as now and also increase compatibility. Novice and expert users will benefit much from this.
     
  14. Arup

    Arup Guest


    Thanks for the insight...........plot thickens.:)
     
  15. dawgg

    dawgg Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2006
    Posts:
    818
    Good to see a test detecting threats really in the wild and driveby downloads, seeing as thats how many infections come along.

    Thankful and elapsed, read the text properly, Virustotal was NOT used for the end results to see which AV detects it, it was ONLY used to initially find the samples and render it "new" enough to be used in the test or not.
    Again, read the text properly, sounds to me you two are jumping to conclusions simply by reading the name "Virustotal" and trying to discredit the test without knowing whats going on. Re: Virustotal - read what I wrote before I quoted you
    Re: honeypot - whats that got to do with this? honeypots weren't used
    re: corrupt files - if they were corrupted, DW wouldn't have blocked 33/34 infections. If anything, that just suggests only 1 sample *may* have been corrupted... but hey, it *may* also be that DW may have simply not prevented it.


    Why would one take away the AVs which include HIPS - at the end of the day, protection of the AV matters, that's its job, regardless of what method they use to protect users.
    (.... and AVs need usability, lightness, low FP etc, we all know the drill :D )
     
  16. Kees1958

    Kees1958 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2006
    Posts:
    5,857
    I have played a lot with DW, and also have played with the new Avira 9 beta. It's advanced heuristics are very good, I estimated that the new Avira will have a 85% detection ration of zero day malware.

    See https://www.wilderssecurity.com/showpost.php?p=1375098&postcount=61

    When DW with outbound protection arrives and Avira 9 is out (free version), I will test them again, because it is the safest and most silent combo around! (currently runing the safest and fastest combo possible = Malware Defender plus Avast free)

    Cheers Kees
     
  17. Baz_kasp

    Baz_kasp Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 1, 2008
    Posts:
    593
    Location:
    London

    FUD alert :rolleyes:

    http://www.anti-malware-test.com/?q=node/42


    I don't see how they could have doctored the results either..... they used real malware samples, most of which can still be downloaded to this moment. KIS blocked the most out of the suites/av's. I dont see why this is such a problem.
     
  18. C.S.J

    C.S.J Massive Poster

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2006
    Posts:
    5,029
    Location:
    this forum is biased!
    because its my choice to.

    if i looked at it your way, DefenseWall would be the winner, every day, every month, every year..... no need for no tests. o_O

    everyone looks at the tests different, ie. some people just look at the figures, everyone is different.
     
  19. Tu5

    Tu5 Guest

    Im using avira 8 and defensewall 2.45 on one of my machines right now and it is IMO also one of the fastest and most effective combos possible. Not too bothered about defensewall with outbound protection as i already have LnS which does the job fantastically. But i will definatly be purchasing the new avira 9 :cool: .
     
  20. format_c

    format_c Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2008
    Posts:
    116
    a scram of the well known lier.

    I can create the set of sample which give me any result I want. even zero detection of KL/other products.

    if you want to know - we kindly asked mr. Shabanov to don't test any of ours products, we don't trust him at all. but he did ignore all of our requests. now, we're considering him as unequal and mendacious person.

    "must die, must die, this Jesus must, Jesus must, Jesus must die" (c) :D
     
  21. Thankful

    Thankful Savings Monitor

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2005
    Posts:
    5,459
    Location:
    New York City
    Thank you for proving our point. 1. Do you feel comfortable having Virustotal or the author determining what is actual malware? 2. From the translated article, "It is important to note that all anti-virus were tested with the standard default settings and with all relevant updates, obtained in an automatic mode." Can't you see that default settings for some AVs are not the strongest?

    This is why it is important to have professional organizations such as AV-Comparatives, AT-test.org, VB100, etc. do AV testing. Very few people have the appropriate knowledge and discipline to do accurate testing.
     
  22. Zombini

    Zombini Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2006
    Posts:
    469
    Seems like a conflict of interest to me. Looks like anti-malware.ru cannot be trusted.
     
  23. Zombini

    Zombini Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2006
    Posts:
    469
    They tested KIS2009 against NIS2008. That is an apples to oranges comparison. KIS2008 would have done a lot worse.
     
  24. Dark_Hanzo

    Dark_Hanzo Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2009
    Posts:
    204
    Location:
    CA
    Even if they tested NIS2009 instead of NIS2008, I don't think the detection rate will miraculously jump from 12% to, let's say, 70% or 80%.
     
  25. dawgg

    dawgg Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2006
    Posts:
    818
    I know everyone looks at them different, was just asking why... and now I know why :)
     
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.