New virus.gr test

Discussion in 'other anti-virus software' started by Logyn, Jan 22, 2006.

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

    Logyn Guest

  2. Smokey

    Smokey Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2002
    Posts:
    1,513
    Location:
    Annie's Pub
    Last edited: Jan 22, 2006
  3. BlueZannetti

    BlueZannetti Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2003
    Posts:
    6,590
    As I've noted in a similar thread, discussion is welcome. Preferably discussion that extends beyond a one liner and provides some context, though all opinions are welcome. However, blatant trolls and attempts to initiate a discussion with respect to moderation decisions will be removed without further comment.

    Regards,

    Blue
     
  4. bellgamin

    bellgamin Very Frequent Poster

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2002
    Posts:
    5,650
    Location:
    Hawaii
    I'm sad to see the censorship of comments favorable to this test. I myself am neutral -- but am always interested in test data and *meaningful* (uncensored) non-vitriolic comments.

    My DrWeb didn't do so well, either. And I am dubious about the accuracy of the test with regard to that fact. However, I see no need to shoot the messenger & delete positive testimony without benefit of a fair trial.
     
  5. BlueZannetti

    BlueZannetti Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2003
    Posts:
    6,590
    Bellgamin,

    Comments favorable to this test are fine. I don't agree with that assessment, but that's another matter.

    However, clear baiting designed to generate little more than an emotional flamewar response is not appropriate. The posts being moderated could take a tact which would readily pass muster. They have deliberately chosen to pursue another route. The outcome is of their own making.

    Blue
     
  6. SSK

    SSK Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2004
    Posts:
    976
    Location:
    Amsterdam
    EDIT: BlueZannetti replied allready.

    When reading the fine-print surrounding the test results, I find it strange that they are not yet sure if the tested malware are working samples?

    How can you categorize programs on detection if you are not certain about the test set?
     
  7. bellgamin

    bellgamin Very Frequent Poster

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2002
    Posts:
    5,650
    Location:
    Hawaii
    @Blue- I am in total agreement with your stated goals, & have a long-time respect for your judgment & impartiality. However, I feel that one-liner comments such as post #2 above "All what i can and will say: this test is complete nonsense" are equally unprofitable & somewhat inflammatory.

    I means, virus.gr's latest test (linked in post #1 above) has an extensive statement of ostensibly technical data about how the test was structured & conducted. To me, a useful comment about the test should deal with that technical data in a more-or-less point-by-point manner. Namely -- is the statement false? How do we know? Is the stated methodology flawed? In what way?

    I can pretty much accept cursory comments from established experts, such as Happy Bytes & IBK, but I find statements by the *rank & file* such as "this test is complete nonsense" are equally deserving of deletion as those which already have been removed.

    P.S.- While I was writing this, the unregistered troll returned & reposted. My sympathies, Blue. I am NOT defending that sort of comments.
     
  8. shorty1

    shorty1 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2004
    Posts:
    97
    Location:
    Vermont
    I always have and always will consider -- when it comes to the results of a test like this -- Kaspersky and it's clones to be a single entry. As such, this is how I view the results. With that in mind, it would seem that only three antivius engines were able to exceed 90% detection and with Nod close to 89%, I would say that is a good showing for Nod. AntiVir at 86% is most impressive I think.

    1. Kaspersky Personal Pro version 5.0.390- 99.46%

    a.) Kaspersky 2006 beta version 6.0.15.222- 99.46%

    b.) F-Secure 2006 version 6.10.330 - 96.92%

    c.) CyberScrub version 1.0 - 96.62%

    d.) eScan Virus Control version 2.6.522.9 - 95.21%

    2. McAfee version 10.0.27 - 94.80%

    3. BitDefender version 9 - 90.75%

    4. Nod32 version 2.50.41 - 88.79%

    5. AntiVir version 6.32.00.51 - 86.55%

    6. AntiVir version 6.32.00.51 - 86.55%

    7. Norton Professional version 2006 - 85.17%

    8. F-Prot version 3.16d - 84.96%

    9. Dr. Web version 4.33 - 84.68%

    10. Panda Titanium 2006 version 5.01.00 - 82.02%
     
  9. Paul Wilders

    Paul Wilders Administrator

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2001
    Posts:
    12,472
    Location:
    The Netherlands
    No further comment, just a reminder.

    regards,

    paul
     
  10. Smokey

    Smokey Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2002
    Posts:
    1,513
    Location:
    Annie's Pub
    You are talking in contradictions.

    You accept cursory comments from "established" experts, but don't do the same from those people which are in your opinion not "established" and not an "expert".o_O

    BTW 1: i didn't knew you are so well informed about my skills...:rolleyes:

    Speaking with your own words: this is *rank & file*.

    BTW 2: it's not my intention to flame, i just make transparency in your post about me.
     
  11. BlueZannetti

    BlueZannetti Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2003
    Posts:
    6,590
    Folks,

    Let's keep comments focused on the topic at hand. Thanks.

    Blue
     
  12. metallicakid15

    metallicakid15 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2005
    Posts:
    454
    avg doing better than trend micro and avasto_O?
     
  13. Notok

    Notok Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 28, 2004
    Posts:
    2,969
    Location:
    Portland, OR (USA)
    These types of tests are fun to do on your own, when you can keep it in perspective that these may have a very large margin of error, but to publish the results as some official test.... If you want to have a test that can be used as some sort of authoritive word, then you gotta go all the way and analyze each sample before the test, not just throw it in there becuase some scanner detected it.

    More on past tests (with responses by the tester).. this one doesn't look much different, IMO.
    https://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?p=250397&highlight=virus.gr#post250397
    https://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?t=46810


    .
     
    Last edited: Jan 22, 2006
  14. Smokey

    Smokey Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2002
    Posts:
    1,513
    Location:
    Annie's Pub
    Paul,

    thanks for this reminder, i have read it now again and fortify me in my opinion;)
     
  15. Smokey

    Smokey Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2002
    Posts:
    1,513
    Location:
    Annie's Pub
    I share your opinion 100%.

    Straight from Mr. VirusP's site:

    "Introduction - What makes our test differ from other tests

    Several antivirus programs have been developed to protect pc users against viruses, that both include both detection of the virus and repairing of the infected files, whenever it is possible. Unfortunately, once again, the dominant ones are those that have the best methods of advertisement and not the ones that "do their job best".


    Why is this test different from all the others (e.g. pc magazines' antivirus tests)


    This test was made by the only Greek virus collector, known as VirusP, webmaster of www.virus.gr, whose collection consists of approximately 245,000 virus samples (crc32 different files) and is one of the biggest virus collections worldwide. On the contrary, all other greek tests' database never exceeds the 6,000 virus samples, while internationally most tests' database doesn't exceed the 20,000 virus samples. So, if you take under consideration the number of both antivirus programs tested and unique virus samples used, you will understand that, statistically speaking, the results of the test would not be too different even if we used 95% of all computer viruses ever made."

    Therefore again: i can't take his tests serious....
     
  16. ErikAlbert

    ErikAlbert Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2005
    Posts:
    9,455
    Very first time, I see this test. Is this test reliable ?
    I always thought, the larger the test-bed, the more reliable the test results are.

    Test-bed of av-comparatives August 2005 contains 421.171 threats.
    Test-bed of virus-gr. contains 113,334 threats.
    Is this virus-gr. test worth my time in the future ?
     
  17. IBK

    IBK AV Expert

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2003
    Posts:
    1,819
    Location:
    Innsbruck (Austria)
    No, I think it is not worthy, it is still like in past, so the comments are always the same. If I would include all various garbage in the test-set like virus.gr does, than my test-set would contain some millions files.
    http://www.av-comparatives.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=1096#1096
     
  18. Smokey

    Smokey Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2002
    Posts:
    1,513
    Location:
    Annie's Pub
    Let's say diplomatic: read the opinions in this thread and make your own decision about reliability (or not);)
     
  19. Firefighter

    Firefighter Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2002
    Posts:
    1,670
    Location:
    Finland
    I don't think so. If you outcluded these File = (BeOS, FreeBSD, Linux, Mac, Palm, OS2, Unix, BinaryImage, BAS viruses, MenuetOS) and MS-DOS = (MS-DOS viruses) categories, these results are not so bad with DrWeb either. Clones has been removed in this comparison.

    1. -- 99.6 % -- Kaspersky Personal Pro v. 5.0.390 & Kaspersky 2006 beta v. 6.0.15.222

    2. -- 92.9 % -- McAfee v. 10.0.27

    3. -- 89.7 % -- BitDefender v. 9

    4. -- 87.7 % -- Nod32 v. 2.50.41

    5. -- 86.6 % -- MKS_VIR 2005

    6. -- 85.5 % -- AntiVir v. 6.32.00.51

    7. -- 83.6 % -- Dr. Web v. 4.33

    8. -- 80.4 % -- Norton Professional v. 2006

    9. -- 79.6 % -- F-Prot v. 3.16d

    10. - 77.9 % -- Panda Titanium 2006 v. 5.01.00

    11. - 76.8 % -- AVG v. 7.1.371

    12. - 71.8 % -- PC-Cillin 2006 v. 14.00.1341

    13. - 71.2 % -- Avast v. 4.6.744

    14. - 67.3 % -- VBA32 v. 3.10.5

    15. - 65.9 % -- Ewido 3.5

    16. - 64.7 % -- UNA v. 1.83

    17. - 64.4 % -- Norman v. 5.83.07

    18. - 59.8 % -- Sophos Sweep v. 3.99

    19. - 50.2 % -- a² Personal v. 1.6

    20. - 47.3 % -- Vexira 2005 v. 5.001.32

    Remember, there are a lot of people that say the Norton is a damn good av!


    Best regards,
    Firefighter!
     
  20. Firecat

    Firecat Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2005
    Posts:
    7,927
    Location:
    The land of no identity :D
    The results of this test are also flawed to a noticeable extent......Many AVs have switched places, and I still don't get how CyberScrub AV which has no extended database could be better than eScan which does have the extended database o_O
     
  21. ErikAlbert

    ErikAlbert Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2005
    Posts:
    9,455
    Thanks. I stick to the av-comparatives in the future !!!
    There are already unreliable tests enough on the net.
     
  22. Notok

    Notok Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 28, 2004
    Posts:
    2,969
    Location:
    Portland, OR (USA)
    Yeesh.. I missed that part. How can 245k samples be representative of all malware ever made, especially when we don't know how many of those files are junk?
     
  23. Smokey

    Smokey Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2002
    Posts:
    1,513
    Location:
    Annie's Pub
  24. Durad

    Durad Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2005
    Posts:
    591
    Location:
    Canada
    I just trust to tests where autor post names of all samples used.

    For example VirusP could post Kaspersky LOG file and show us that his test is reliable.

    Is there any reason of why to not post such log?
     
  25. Notok

    Notok Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 28, 2004
    Posts:
    2,969
    Location:
    Portland, OR (USA)
    That wouldn't tell us if the sample is genuine working malware or not. Durin ghte KIS2006 beta I had several temp files detected as trojans when I was installing something that was definitely not malicious. Unless he gave all the samples to an actual malware analyst, there's no real way of telling.
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.