Discussion in 'other anti-virus software' started by progress, Jan 9, 2009.
sorry, but I do not see it...
but I do not understand the reason for the difference between the two pages, articles
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.
let me first congratulate the winner.....congratz KIS!
Yeah, I'd have to say the winner of that test was indeed DefenseWall.
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.
Is the interactive mode of KIS (like you advised in post #29 for higher score) easier to handle than DW?
No idea. Haven't used DW!
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.
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
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.
Thanks for the insight...........plot thickens.
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 )
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.
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)
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.
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.
everyone looks at the tests different, ie. some people just look at the figures, everyone is different.
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 .
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)
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.
Seems like a conflict of interest to me. Looks like anti-malware.ru cannot be trusted.
They tested KIS2009 against NIS2008. That is an apples to oranges comparison. KIS2008 would have done a lot worse.
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%.
I know everyone looks at them different, was just asking why... and now I know why
Separate names with a comma.