New Virus.gr Tests!

i just looked over the test and not only did the AVs get weird results but the ATs too. i never thought ewido would do better than TDS. not to mention some AVs that i never heard of, did surprising well. and finally the web site states the following in their introduction:

"During the tests, all antivirus programs had the latest updates and engines and all scanning capabilities, such as heuristics, all-files-scan, deep scan were used. All virus samples had been de-compressed, had the correct file extension according to a special program (Renexts) and were unique according to checksum32 filesize."

lying to knowledgable ppl isnt good for the image of the site or of the virus tests. this statement doesnt seem to be reflected in the test results, as many ppl already stated. i want to know if the ppl at virus.gr would care to know our opinions or if they'd rather continue their flawed testing. i dont know of many sites that compare the detection rates of AVs but the results at virus.gr seem inaccurate and unreliable. i guess its up to the user to test AVs and decide which one works best for them.

 

Let's forget those proper false positive av-tests. If there isn't an accurate definition to an infected sample, how could we say that this sample is clean then?

Let's wait some evaluations which av:s have the best looking GUI, the most attractive colours, the most sophisticated sounds, the funniest infection names, the most valuable Forums, the quickest ability to catch an eicar test file etc. Believe or not, I don't even have a clue of the winners in tests like just mentioned!

Best regards,
Firefighter!

 

Where exactly was the lie?

 

I don't understand how AV's and AT's can coexist in the same test. I assume the scanning technologies used are different; so shouldn't the test bed be different?

 

It's always very easy to throw insults and irrelevant generalizations. Let's wait the day until those anti-KAV fanatics will publish their own av-tests in here. I'm pretty sure that the chorus will change but the songs will be quite similar.

Best regards,
Firefighter!

 

Firefighter,
i have read the posts twice but i havent noticed somebody to be a anti-kav fanatic. Just concerns for the method used. I am a NOD32 user but i dont have problem to accept that KAV is one of the best AV.

 

That "anti-KAV fanatic" is only my own generalization about certain people just seen in different topics concerning av-tests. I am a DrWeb user but I don't have any need to change my av even though DrWeb scored like it did here in VirusP 04-2005.

Best regards,
Firefighter!

 

Ok my friend, thanks, i agree with you.

 

An unfortunate choice of words. In any event, lying to UN-knowledgable people would be even worse than lying to knowledgable people, I think -- for obvious reasons.

Never for a moment would I have even the slightest notion that VirusP is doing anything other than publishing his actual results with as much accuracy as possible. I do think that VirusP might want to look into some of the seeming anomalies that posters have pointed out. I also think it might be helpful for him to consider IBK's comments which (to me) seemed quite friendly & instructive.

By the way -- I, too, am a DrWeb user. Concerning which...
Bill was a long-time resident of Hawaii. He retired at age 74.

One of his friends said, "Now that you're retired, I suppose you plan to travel a lot, right?"

"Travel?" replied Bill, looking puzzled. "Why should I travel? I'm already here."

 

No kidding! Must be torture living out there, BG...

 

Actually --- right at this moment there is a bit of VOG in Paradise.

Madam Pele's son, Kilauea, is presently active. {VOG=Volcanic Smog}

Reference VirusP's tests -- I am disappointed that he doesn't test EZ/Vet antivirus. Neither does IBK (comparatives) or Jotti. In fact, I am unable to find ANY tests of EZ/VET anywhere on the net. If anyone knows of any test data on this AV, please let me know.

 

Vog is good for you.

I think I need to go back to Kona and do some diving, lay out on the beach and ride through the volcanic ash piles.

 

What's this in the middle of VirusP 04-2005 picture?

Best regards,
Firefighter!

 

Even if VirusP exclude "garbage" files and Linux stuff there will not be a big diference!

Now just think about that Ewido "detect" over 100000 malwares and scored under 40%...

I agree that excluding DOS and old viruses as well as "garbage" and Linux files would give as better and more reliable results for today Windows users but VirusP probably just wanted to show how all product do against all he could collect.

I do not think his idea was to change customers mind related to purchasing a software however I think that most of you here just think like that!

All I would like to see Kaspersky LOG file and NOD32 LOG file after test scan is done just to make sure there is that much of viruses as mentioned on his web site!


VirusP is it possible that you provide us with these LOG files?


Thanks

 

Well, FF, I did notice that. But the pairing with Zone Alarm confused me. Also, VirusP shows version number given by Zone Alarm (5.5.062.011) whereas the Vet website HERE gives the latest Vet version # as 10.66.0.0. Yes, I might *assume* that ZA's suite uses the latest Vet version, but I would much rather see a no-assumption-needed, pristine test of the latest version of Vet or EZ. Actually, I'm rather hoping that their detection rates are not really that low.

Hey, FF -- how come you don't include EZ in YOUR tests? After all, they still have a free offer HERE, I think.

 

IBK did here: http://www.av-comparatives.org/index.html?http://www.av-comparatives.org/seiten/test.html , which means that EZ/Vet is under 85%.

 

"Under 85%" would include scores from as high as 84%, all the way down to 0%-zilch.

If EZ scored (say) between 75% to 84%, I might want to give it a trial -- in conjunction with a good anti-trojan.

IBK, I realize you have to cut things of SOMEwhere, & I do appreciate the link you provided.

As an aside-- might you consider inclusion of data for the Top 10 AV sellers, regardless of score, & then apply the 85% cut-off to all others?

 

Without starting a heated debate, we again are brought back to the question of how accurate the test results are?
Now I am aware of Virus-p but have not yet had the pleasure of talking with him personally, my aim is not to slur his name at all but simply to point out that without expensively paid for laboratories and banks of scientists then most people will dismiss your tests (the tests of Virus-P) without prior knowledge or skill in this matter. To Joe Bloggs he just want the latest Nav version! At least it keeps me in business when he attempts to uninstall it!

Kev

 

I was using the free EZ AV for a short time because it was very light on my slow pc but changed back to KAV when EZ failed to detect warspy trojan and serpo adware which hijacked my browser, in fact I still cant find those two malware listed on the CA virus list so I presume they still have no signatures for them.

 

Did you submit the malware to them for analysis? No offense but I think if folks spent as much time in submission of malware to Vendors, as they do in criticism of Vendors when they feel the Vendor let them down, we would have a different security landsape.

 

Isnt that what the Wildlist is supposed to be for where vendors swap information.

 

Some of us are uncertain as to how (and to where) to submit malware to AV vendors. I searched but could not find a specific *how-to* on that subject here at Wilders -- sticky or otherwise. I'm not saying that there isn't one, but if there is I couldn't find it.

 

Maybe we need to get something like what DSLReports has -- they have a clickable link which works in most email clients and will send to all the AV/AT Vendors at once. They also have a separate {private} Malware Forum where people can upload malware and Vendor Reps can download it for analysis. Just some thoughts, I did not mean to sound critical of guest. But I do see this all the time, where someone complains against a product or vendor but, when I question that poster to see if they bothered to submit, I find that they didn't submit the samples to the Vendor they are complaining against. It would be more fair-minded I think, and more importantly, would promote better security, if we could balance our complaints with our submissions. Now, if we do go to the trouble to submit, and a Vendor still does not respond to include true malware for detection, then I think that Vendor richly deserves all the criticism leveled against him since he is without excuse ... JMHO. Take Care ..

 

I can't speak with any authority on this subject, but if some of the most used AV and AT are scoring 40 - 50% I think we are in trouble.

Jerry

 

what we need is a more appropriate testbed of viruses especially a seperate trojan one for ATs. that being said if an AT can score around 40% in a test for AVs, wouldnt that be a good thing? and btw which programs are u referring to?