New test results VirusInfo

Discussion in 'other anti-virus software' started by Sjoeii, Jan 5, 2008.

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

    Sjoeii Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2006
    Posts:
    1,240
    Location:
    52?18'51.59"N + 4?56'32.13"O
  2. trjam

    trjam Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2006
    Posts:
    9,057
    Location:
    North Carolina
    Damn, all I can say is good work Prevx.:thumb: :)
     
  3. jrmhng

    jrmhng Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2007
    Posts:
    1,268
    Location:
    Australia
    Is this one of the reliable tests like av-comparatives?
     
  4. jmc777

    jmc777 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2004
    Posts:
    244

    The general 'rule of thumb' around here is: if your AV of choice does well - it's a reliable test. If it does badly - it's not.
     
  5. trjam

    trjam Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2006
    Posts:
    9,057
    Location:
    North Carolina
    yes, its reliable.
     
  6. tiagozt

    tiagozt Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2004
    Posts:
    331
    IKARUS, we are still waiting for a good English website with information about the antivirus and details.

    Good results one more time...

    The test is reliable for me... but I think Dr.Web isn't too good. Test powered by russian people should explain it. Despite it I think it's ok.

    ;)
     
  7. Solaris

    Solaris Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2007
    Posts:
    54
    I am currently trying Ikarus; I am very surprised in every sense. I will wait until after my trial period and I think to purchase a license.

    Very good result in this test, actually, but I suspect Ikarus to be a little paranoid -> FP.
    He finds Trojan in some (unofficial) .nfo files. o_O
     
  8. risl

    risl Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2006
    Posts:
    581
    Well, have you used Dr.Web and had problems, crashes, errors or infections? Did the support help you solve it if you had?

    I'm not here to convince you of Dr.Web, but I think it's a bit funny to declare some software bad and demand explanations if it improves or does well in some other tests. It's been there for over 15 years and perhaps there is some room for downhills and uphills in that period. Would you be demanding an explanation if it would do well in av-test.org but bad in russian tests?

    -> solution, don't let tests judge if a software is good or bad, try it yourself and see.
     
  9. C.S.J

    C.S.J Massive Poster

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2006
    Posts:
    5,029
    Location:
    this forum is biased!
    drweb seems to do well in this test, but i dont think its a reliable test.

    drweb seems to do well in anti-malware.ru tests, and they are reliable.

    this is what confuses me, when i see the results of av-comp and av-test.

    ive certainly never been infected with drweb, so i never know what to think of test results, i certainly dont make my choices on them.
     
  10. Bunkhouse Buck

    Bunkhouse Buck Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2007
    Posts:
    1,056
    Location:
    Las Vegas
    Yes but you would make your choice on them if Dr. Web tested good in all of your mentioned tests and the tests would then be considered "reliable." But since Dr. Web does not test well particularly in AV-Comparatives, then we ascribe an "unreliable" mark to it-right?
     
  11. noway

    noway Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2005
    Posts:
    351
    How could it be trusted if they don't even list the software versions in the graph. I mean is it Symantec Consumer or Corporate? Did they use a version from 2007, 2006, 1995?
     
  12. C.S.J

    C.S.J Massive Poster

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2006
    Posts:
    5,029
    Location:
    this forum is biased!
    totally uncalled for.....

    ive been a drweb user since before the anti-malware / virusinfo tests, i think you forget this.
     
  13. risl

    risl Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2006
    Posts:
    581
    Since 0 antiviruses can detect absolutely 100% of present and new malware or prevent present or upcoming bypassing techniques, we can stamp an "unreliable mark" to every product.
     
  14. trjam

    trjam Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2006
    Posts:
    9,057
    Location:
    North Carolina
    It is ironic how some moved up, and some moved down from the last test. Is it reliable? Who know, who cares. This stuff is what it is. I still think the biggest surprise is Prevx. Actually I dont. I really think this is one to keep a eye on. They have been sitting back and I keep saying their time has come.
     
  15. Solaris

    Solaris Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2007
    Posts:
    54
    This test does not take into account the FP or not. Under these conditions difficult to draw a conclusion, except for products that have really weak results.
    A parallel comparison between "Av-Comparative" (pro-active - False positive), and this test allows to get an idea.
     
  16. Wordward

    Wordward Former Poster

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2007
    Posts:
    707
    Just curious if AVG Pro or AVG Anti-Malware is used? I believe it is AVG Pro, but anyone know for sure? Thanks.
     
  17. Hangetsu

    Hangetsu Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2006
    Posts:
    259
    What's pretty shocking to me is Microsoft moved up ahead of many mainstay AVs... The day after finding out they really don't have any specific rootkit checks. I'm telling you, owning a copy of OneCare is like being on a security roller-coaster ride. :D
     
  18. Bubba

    Bubba Updates Team

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2002
    Posts:
    11,271
    Since the above link in post # 1 is a repeat link of a previous ongoing thread, let's simply continue the discussion there Please.

    Continue here---> New Virusinfo test

    Thanks,
    Bubba
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.