New virus.gr test on the way...

Discussion in 'other anti-virus software' started by Firecat, Aug 29, 2006.

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

    Firecat Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2005
    Posts:
    7,927
    Location:
    The land of no identity :D
    Well, most of us know that AV-Comparatives' next test results will be published on September the 1st. Can't wait to see the results for that.

    But apprently, virus.gr is also going to publish its latest test results on September 1. Here is the quote from the website.

    All I can say is "Hmm..." :D

    Considering that virus.gr tests have not been so accurate in the past, I am wondering what it means when it says "very interesting for all users to read"...And what is the "Special Feature" test?
     
  2. dan_maran

    dan_maran Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2004
    Posts:
    1,053
    Location:
    Stamford, CT
    Maybe the special feature/Interesting read will be he(VirusP) will actually setup the programs right this
    time.
     
  3. FRug

    FRug Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2006
    Posts:
    309
    I expect something dramatic, yet completely irrelevant or stupid.

    My personal bet is that he will start creating new variants and bitch about AVs not detecting them.
     
  4. Firecat

    Firecat Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2005
    Posts:
    7,927
    Location:
    The land of no identity :D
    You mean code permutation? Isn't that nautilus' line of work? :D
     
  5. Inspector Clouseau

    Inspector Clouseau AV Expert

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2006
    Posts:
    1,329
    Location:
    Maidenhead, UK
    :D :D :D
    Well as for every other tester he has to keep his testbed "clean" and there i've serious doubts. Actually almost nobody from the testers which are testing AV Programs as a "hobby" are able to seperate a worm from a trojan without the help of several other AV Programs. Or to identify trash samples which would not even run. However, we have to live with it.
     
  6. wawy

    wawy Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2006
    Posts:
    23
  7. Legendkiller

    Legendkiller Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2006
    Posts:
    1,052
    well i can't find much difference apart from mcafee getting 93.3 and norton going to early 80's..
    also lot of AV's using licensed AV's from kaspersky and others have done a great job.
     
  8. FRug

    FRug Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2006
    Posts:
    309
    OMFG this is even worse than I had imagined.... Making a heuristic test by subtracting the scan numbers without activated heuristics from the numbers with activated heuristicso_O How utterly stupid can one person be o_O What relevance has that for heuristic capabilities of an AVo_O NONE! Not even the TINIEST bit....

    For the rest of the test, same bad virus test set I imagine, as he even admits there are false positives in it.... does not seem that he has learned anything from the previous critizisms on his tests....

    I'd prefer waiting for IBKs results....
     
  9. Firecat

    Firecat Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2005
    Posts:
    7,927
    Location:
    The land of no identity :D
    More strange results.

    Excuse Me?

    1)CyberScrub scoring better than eScan despite eScan having the extended database while CyberScrub only has standard database?

    2)BitDefender 9 scoring better than both BullGuard and BitDefender 8 Pro can be explained in the fact that BD8 and BullGuard do not have spyware detection capability, however in the previous test, BullGuard scored exactly the same as BitDefender 9....

    Huh? While VC will detect less because it does not have heuristics, if we subtract the heuristic scan results from Dr.Web, the score is still higher than VC by a margin of 1.5% approximately...This should not happen because both VC and Dr.Web now use the same engine version....

    I do believe his test set is still flawed...though I think he tried harder this time.
     
    Last edited: Sep 1, 2006
  10. RejZoR

    RejZoR Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2004
    Posts:
    6,426
    WHat is ViruScape 2006 doing next in front of McAfee is beyond me really...:ninja:
     
  11. ggf31416

    ggf31416 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2006
    Posts:
    314
    Location:
    Uruguay
    Code:
    Rank Antivirus - Detected using only heuristics
    
    1 Nod32 2.51.30 - 41503
    2 Vba32 3.11.0 - 32911
    3 VirIT 6.1.9 - 16469
    4 AVG 7.1.405 Professional - 13624
    ...
    16 AntiVir 7.01.01.02 Premium - 3697
    17 AntiVir 7.01.01.02 Classic - 3594
    18 Dr. Web 4.33.2 - 3575
    ...
    24 BitDefender 8.0.202 freeware - 511
    ...
    26 BitDefender 9 Professional - 353
    ...
    31 Quick Heal 8.00 - 0
    The results are very funny o_O o_O :D
    AVG is 4 times better than AntiVir and Dr. Web, 26 times better than BitDefender 8 and 40 times better than BitDefender 9 :eek:
    The test is obviously flawed. :thumbd:
     
  12. Inspector Clouseau

    Inspector Clouseau AV Expert

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2006
    Posts:
    1,329
    Location:
    Maidenhead, UK
    Ridiculous - thats the only thing i have to say :eek:
     
  13. hbkh

    hbkh Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2004
    Posts:
    128
    Location:
    Ohio, USA
    hahaha.... whew... thanks virus.gr I needed that... :D
     
  14. Tommy

    Tommy Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Posts:
    1,169
    Location:
    Buenos Aires - Munic
    Very but very astonishing this results. Doubts are coming up o_O
     
  15. Chubb

    Chubb Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2005
    Posts:
    1,967
    Sophos AntiVirus version 6.0.2 - 69.48%

    I can't believe it!!! Sophos should not be that worse.
     
  16. Inspector Clouseau

    Inspector Clouseau AV Expert

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2006
    Posts:
    1,329
    Location:
    Maidenhead, UK
    ACK. To make it clear: Most of the AV companies adding a proper Virus Signature for threats found with Heuristic! That said: Even if the heuristic was/is able to detect that said threat with such a flawed and completely unprofessional, amateurish (it's even below that level!) AV "Testing" you will never get true results. Simple for the reason being that if you substract heuristic detections just by disabling and enabling heuristic you ALWAYS miss the files which are detected by signature BUT also detected by Heuristic! So basically the winner in this test will always be the AV Program which doesn't add a signature for their heuristic detections. ( i dont mean specifically NOD here... ) But it's easy as this: If some widely spreaded worm got nailed via Heuristic almost everyone adds a proper name - simply for the reason that you have to provide a virus description for this particular worm. You don't even need to work in AV business to understand this - this should be common sense - especially for wanna be hobby av testers!
     
  17. Inspector Clouseau

    Inspector Clouseau AV Expert

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2006
    Posts:
    1,329
    Location:
    Maidenhead, UK
  18. FRug

    FRug Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2006
    Posts:
    309
    My point exactly ;)
     
  19. Durad

    Durad Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2005
    Posts:
    591
    Location:
    Canada
    Virus.gr should post log files of antivirus softwares to make us believe to that test.
    We all know that it will never heppend :)
     
  20. kdm31091

    kdm31091 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2006
    Posts:
    365
    According to these, A-Squared and Ewido detect a pretty good chunk of viruses but previously I heard they did not. Do they really?

    Also does Escan actually remove what it finds, that is, is it truly useful or does it just detect?
     
  21. rdsu

    rdsu Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2003
    Posts:
    4,456
    This guys thinks that we are stupid!?

    I don't know how can someone make such a stupid tests without knowing what they are doing...
     
  22. Edwin024

    Edwin024 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2004
    Posts:
    1,000
    There is no they. It's one Greek. I can't tell if it is a fat Greek though ;)

    With Angelos gone to feyenoord Greece is my favourite country now (as Ajax fan)...
     
  23. Firecat

    Firecat Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2005
    Posts:
    7,927
    Location:
    The land of no identity :D
    Don't know about Ewido/A2, but the version of eScan tested was the commercial edition, and not the free version of eScan.
     
  24. mrtwolman

    mrtwolman Eset Staff Account

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2002
    Posts:
    613
    All I have to say: this test is flawed by design.

    Here is the proof: "The 147184 virus samples were chosen using VS2000 according to Kaspersky, F-Prot, Nod32, Dr.Web, BitDefender and McAfee antivirus programs. Each virus sample was unique by virus name, meaning that AT LEAST 1 antivirus program detected it as a new virus."

    Imagine that just single of mentioned programs produces a FP. The file, based on criteria for inclusion in the test set, will qualify as regular test file. This means that all programs not having this FP would produce a miss in the test on that particular file.
     
  25. Marcos

    Marcos Eset Staff Account

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2002
    Posts:
    14,374
    In other words, the more an AV produces the higher it ranks :D
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.