Discussion in 'other anti-virus software' started by ....., Apr 24, 2005.
nod is 18th [I'm beginning to hate this program... can't update the beta]
kav+clones are top 4
norton corp/norton are 5/6
Mcafee 9 is 7
BDv8 is 9
how come ArcaVir and MKS_VIR have different ratings?
Dont tell me that you trust the Antony Petrakis test!
A Dr Web clone. I am very surprised that it appeared to offer better detection than DW.
An Anti-trojan program(Ewido) beat several AV's
And Norton seems to be doing well of late, both in this test and others
and pray tell why not?
Some results are weird,thats why.
Be very careful! I was in Greece for year and i know what is happening.
If anybody have info about him,lets inform us, im 100% sure that the tests are biased, thanks.
With my NOD32 hat on, this is a bad test, unreliable; with my McAfee hat on, this is an interesting test but I have some doubts about it, too far behind KAV; with my AVK hat on, this is a great test.
I happen to be running AVK at the moment, so this is a great test
I like the following:
21. Avast version 4.6.623 - 76.65%
22. Dr. Web version 4.32b - 78.71%
Most samples are either old DOS(355504) or Trojans/ backdoors(32710)..... very few w32 virii (only 2676).
There is a catogary called "malware" too (some 5700) samples.... what is in here? ad/spyware? Riskware?
Quite alot of scripts(8066) and macro(6294) virii too.
One other thing that "suprises" is me is how KAV does better than AVK (KAV+ Bitdefender). This is due to the bases used? F-Secure does better than KAV in ALL catogaries EXCEPT the "malware" one.
I think ill stick to the results of the AV-Comparatives tests to be honest. Some of the results seem quite "off" to me.
Is it me or do the TrojanHunter and Digital Patrol "Trojan-Backdoor" detection rates on the excel file and PDF look funny?
Virus Chaser version 5.0 - 88.31% which is BASED on DRWEB.
Dr. Web version 4.32b - 78.71%
BullGuard scored very low comparing to BitDefender. Both products are using the same engine.
Come on now.
Comparison between these 4 products is a WAY OFF. This just proves that his test is flawed.
I really can’t believe that he is testing all 58 products on the same machine?
Yes. Would you really believe in a av test done by a virus collector? This test is flawed to death!!!
There is an error in the calculation formula, that 5700 on the top of the picture should be 32710. An other error in the script formula, that 6294 on the top of the Excel should be 8086.
Yeah I saw that and the error that Blackspear pointed out. Kinda make me wonder if there were other mistakes...
I think that they have to be as a results of poor program installations. VirusP has no need to do flawed tests in purpose. There was this kind of errors in the VirusP 12-2003 with eScan I think.
Avast's real detecting rate was 79.65 %, look at that Excel table.
The Virus Chaser is Good Product ? Is a DR. WEB Clone with the same quality or not ? Some comment is Good..
Actually this admitted VirusP too, when he wrote this in the testing summary.
"The 91202 virus samples were chosen using VS2000 according to Kaspersky, F-Prot, RAV, Nod32, Dr.Web, Sweep, 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."
Unfortunately this is the case with some other tests too, as mine, to verify samples as infected we need antiviruses to that. But still, if we close those referring av:s outside, there we can see a good comparison against THESE CATEGORIES with the rest proggies.
I'm dubious of this test. While it appears some of the results are valid, others look fairly incorrect. Lets address some of them.
Virus Chaser, I have a license to this product, and in my personal tests it scores consistantly behind Dr.Web if they are using the same settings. However by default, VirusChaser has been modified to scan more file extensions than Dr.Web which can cause a definate discrepency in tests. Not only that, I found the program quite "Unstable" and having more system load than Dr.Web. Furthermore, did he use the extended bases for Dr.Web? I doubt it. So i'm curious as to how it could possibly score higher than Dr.Web other than incorrect settings in the AV.
Bullguard, this is nothing more than a CLONE if BitDefender Pro. There should be no difference whatsoever in scores between BD and BG. But again, BG comes default with different settings on what to scan. So I can assume this is another example of incorrect settings.
So I guess my issues with it are:
1) What is "File", a section that seems particularly slanted towards KAV engined products in scores, and has only 234 threats. But enough to seriously warp the final percentage.
2) Why the DOS viruses? Haven't we all established long ago, that these shouldn't even be in the test sets anymore?
3) What is in the Malware section? -- Spyware? Adware? Riskware? I think we need some of this explained in more detail before assuming anything
4) I need to see the settings of each AV before i'd consider this test. Because I can tell just by looking at it, there was errors in configuration and setup.
Finally, given that Dr.Web and NOD32 scored so low, i'd bet money this test had some serious garbage files in it, probably pulled off the script kiddie sites all over the internet (and ironically, most verify samples with KAV engines). I'm not making excuses, but some AV's are pretty picky about inclusion of "Trash" in their databases - other AV's aren't. For example I have a 2 line bat file that can do nothing, but KAV says its a "Dangerous Trojan". Etc.
My 2c. In summary, I see little validity in this test.
Good post SDS909....
Seems to me he didn't enable NOD's heuristic...
Same old, same old...I thought VP was cleaning up and verifying his test bed, but ah, well.
Looks like another "this av detects it, so it must be a virus" test to me.
What's sad about this is, I just know that someone will cite this test and others like it in attacking perfectly good AVs. Ah well.
Another discrepancy is that CyberScrub AntiVirus seems to have scored below 90%. I find this impossible because CyberScrub is a rebadged KAV Lite 4.5 with tri-hourly updates. Hmmm....
eScan has some file restrictions so I'm not surprised its scores were lower than KAV.
I also find it strange that MKS_Vir and ArcaVir have different detection rate.
Panda's Titanium and Platinum product line have the same scan engine, yet there is a difference in detection rate.
This test seems very highly untrustworthy to me.
Separate names with a comma.