New Virusinfo test

nice graph chris, whee did you get the software.

 

No comments on Ikarus?

And who's the Russian dude way over on the right - or is that a virus total?

 

so, did you like my test?

same methodology to the Virusinfo test.

 

Nice test Chris.

 

I'm not surprised Fortinet and Panda got so high in your test chris!... seeing as they detect most things anyway (Suspicious!)
Suprised they didnt do better in VirusInfo... unless they didn't count "suspicious" detections which would make more sense for these 2

 

yeah dawgg, in my test i suspected that a few have paranoid detections.

i expected avira to catch all of them without being paranoid, but not really panda.

also, symantec's poor results also surprised me.

drweb had 7 missed samples, but it should have been 6 as one file does get detected by drweb on my computer.

either way, i sent the remaining 6 to drweb for analysis.

 

Maybe DrWeb's engine in VT wasn't updated yet (recently added detection). Could be the case for other AVs as well though... (I'm not sure about the frequency of updates for VT in relation to users)

 

Hello everybody,

let me join your friendly discussion.

It is quite natural to say that a test is wrong, is bought, is sponsored by an AV company etc. I often see that regarding most of the tests: any test presupposes participants who have low results, and it provokes a sort of disapproval.

Please be sure that our test is neither for nor against any concrete product. We do that for our own interest.

Now about the test from the message I am quoting:

dear C.S.J, are you certainly sure you've reproduced the methodology completely? The samples should meet the following restrictions:

They should be taken from infected machines that you have healed yourself (condition 1)

They should not be detected by the antivirus software of the infected machine (condition 2)

They should not be taken from some collection of malware that are commonly available in the Internet (condition 3)

I suppose your samples were not that fresh.

In conclusion: I say in the article describing the graph that we never pretend to be the ultimate truth in testing. No test can determine an antivirus as a whole: they all deal with some side of it (proactive defense, signature detection, self-defense etc). Our test reflects only one facet of antivirus software, so it should not be understood as the only one showing all the capabilities of the software.

Why Kaspersky and Dr.Web are not brilliant in our test? Well, that is very much obvious: they are the most widespread antiviral solutions in Russia, and our specialists are usually called to remove an infection that the antivirus software of a computer fails to detect and/or remove. Respectively the malware which corresponds to the conditions of our testing (especially the second one) often comes to be not detected by Kaspersky and Dr.Web.

If you want to help us making the tests more international, you are welcome: even guests can send us the results of VirusTotal scannings to be processed.

 

hi nick, my little test was for samples available today, this does not include virus collections.

was just for fun, don't take it too seriously

 

very true!.. didn't think of that

 

I wanted to make sure that our methodology was understood correctly.

But of course data received on viruses that are widely spread in Russian Internet may differ from that received on viruses from other sectors of the Net.

 

I ain't no Russian, British bulldog here

But yeah I understand you and what you mean

 

If they don't disclose the AV version numbers, what else aren't they disclosing? These test results are not very useful in my opinion.

 

What is the program that is listed to the right? Which is written in Russian or something.

 

Does anyone know why TrustPort Workstation,
(which contains 4 antivirus engines) and more ... was not tested?

Strange, because it received already the best test results once this year at av-comparatives.org.

But was not allowed to be tested ?

 

I don't think it's an av product itself, it seems rather the 'total detection' rating or something like this.
Who's russian here?

 

Did not know that one. Sounds very logical though

 

well I still dont understand it. It sounds like you are saying that Kaspersky and Dr Web are the most used in Russia, that makes sense. But are the ones you find the most malware on. To me it sounds like you are saying they are not any good. Or is it because of the high volume of machines using the 2, the better chance of finding malware, which is good for them. Not being sarcastic, just trying to understand.

 

so basically its a test against kaspersky and drweb?

admitting that VT results used were ones not detected by kaspersky/drweb, seems like a nice statement to make the test in-valid.

i actually thought drweb did well on this test, however... after reading this, i will have to read-on.

the latest test to arrive that i believe is very well respected is the anti-malware.ru one, and im pleased that drweb had great result.

good work.

 

Yes, it means "total files".

 

what strikes me is the difference for AVG ... it doesn't perform better than the rest in the newest test ...
BTW the AVG free : does it have heuristic scanning included or ... not ?

 

nope, it does not mean they're not good... the methodology states that any malware detected on a computer which is detected by the computer's AV (Kaspersky or DrWeb most commonly in Russia) will not be used in the test sample... so there may be many malware detected by these, but they wont be included in the tests due to the AV on the computer allrady detecting it

 

Exactly,which equates to a false test

I don't like how the samples are checked with vt either

 

IMO... yes, especially for Kaspersky and DrWeb

 

it'd weird though cos drweb does quite well in the test.