New Virus.gr Tests!

I was looking at the post by Firefighter that showed AVG at something in the mid 50s. Looking again at the info it was the AT that scored that.
I would have to agree that an AT that could detect trojans is good, just as an AV that can detect some trojans is good. Between the two the protection should be good, although I realize there could be some new virus that might slip through.

Although it does not pertain to the test that this thread is about, I note that whatever test is run, those whose AV does not score at the top are quick to point out that the test is flawed.

Jerry

 

Well, I've never wanted to be at the top, and my current AV isn't. I do know from real-life experience that my AV is good, but not the best.

But when a test shows an AV to be bad, and that AV has demonstrated several times that it is not bad (through pro tests and real-world experiences), then I do tend to suspect the test.

There is no better way of testing AVs and ATs than putting them into real-world scenarios. Test scenarios will always differ from our homes.

 

Re: New Virus.gr Tests! - Amateur RUBBISH!

Virus.gr is even less credible than AV-Test.org!

In spite of all the criticism from knowledgeable anti-virus experts, Petrakis and Marx are still using the same tainted VX collections today as they were using a year ago!

Discussing worthless amateur tests like these in a serious security forum is a waste of bandwidth!

 

rele? until now, i havent seen an AV that had a crippled trialware. i wonder whats the spurpose tho.

 

Dr.Web consider HTML as container
Take a look at Dr.Web help:
"file containers of ActiveMIME (MSO), PowerPoint, HTML, OLEMessage, RTF formats".
"The action is set separately for archives, mail files and file containers."

Container scans always.
20ht day Dr.Web demo have not any restrictions.

Pls stop discussion of this KAV advertising message at all.

 

Contrary to what you may have read, DrWeb does NOT cripple its demo versions. My granddaughter's recent demo version of DrWeb (she is now registered) was NOT crippled in any respect whatsoever. Neither were demo versions used by others in my group.

As to the comments that led to your concern -- I always wonder why some feel it necessary to instill FUD about any given AV by posting derogatory comments without providing any factual support for them. No matter how *expert* the poster, comments should be supported by facts rather being made as *pronouncements from Mount Olympus*.

 

No way NOD 32 can be low on the list, and also the version they used to test is like a very old version. 2.14? and it's now 2.51.

 

one reason for the discrepencies in the test is if the viruses are packed. NOD32 and some other AVS are terrible at scanning out malware in archives.

 

The version of NOD32 used was the most current at that time, if i remember correctly.

 

VBA32 is second one (mainly restrictions in heuristics and archives iirc). Unless you request special trial key from their sales departement.