Only 6 Real AV's !

Discussion in 'other anti-malware software' started by CloneRanger, Mar 28, 2014.

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

    CloneRanger Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2006
    Posts:
    4,833
  2. lordraiden

    lordraiden Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2006
    Posts:
    3,080
  3. Minimalist

    Minimalist Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2014
    Posts:
    5,085
    Harsh statement but would partly agree with it. I have high regard for most of those Avs, and also some others. OTOH there are some Av's that detect everything unusual as some kind of Generic malware...

    hqsec
     
  4. Brandonn2010

    Brandonn2010 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2011
    Posts:
    1,849
    What about AVG, Avira, Bitdefender, Emsisoft, Panda?
     
  5. daman1

    daman1 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2009
    Posts:
    770
    Location:
    MICHIGAN,USA
    I agree^^^

    i wouldn't give BD up for any of those,maybe... Kaspersky.
     
  6. Solarlynx

    Solarlynx Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2011
    Posts:
    1,916
  7. trjam

    trjam Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2006
    Posts:
    9,057
    Location:
    North Carolina
    I see 3 I would swap out with Bitdefender, 360 and Panda
     
  8. BoerenkoolMetWorst

    BoerenkoolMetWorst Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2009
    Posts:
    3,771
    Location:
    Outer space
    With more than 50 av's on VT there are indeed quite a few that are not good, and some of them seem to have a FP on almost every file. But to say there are only 6 real AV's is way too harsh imo.
     
  9. Inside Out

    Inside Out Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2013
    Posts:
    421
    Location:
    Pangea
    F-Secure is also missing.

    nsm0220 coming to this thread to defend his trash in 3...2...1 :rolleyes:
     
    Last edited: Mar 28, 2014
  10. safeguy

    safeguy Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2010
    Posts:
    1,718
    Doesn't EP_XOFF know that the term "AV" is a marketing term and that in fact should be termed antimalware? Why is he making a differentiation between so-called AVs and antispywares when in todays context, the vendors listed no longer produce specialized products to detect only certain categories of malware? What next - anti-trojan and anti-worms?

    Doesn't he know that VT uses the commandline scanners and not the full fledged products that consumer/enterprise use? By definition (check VT stance about using their service to compare AVs - it simply isn't the right methodology) , none of those can be called "real AVs".
    https://www.virustotal.com/en/faq/

    Even if we dismiss the above and are only going to focus on the engine part, how can he possibly not include vendors who create their own and have been in the industry for a long time?

    EP_XOFF is clearly an expert and highly regarded as knowledgeable in his field. Unfortunately, in my personal opinion, this is one instance of "False Authority Syndrome".
    https://vmyths.com/fas/

    That being said, I do agree that certain AVs deserve more weight when you are trying to decide whether something is a positive/valid detection or false positive. Even then, sometimes the less popular ones might correctly detect something the bigger names fail to. After all, who was the first to detect Stuxnet? Did you mention VirusBlokAda? :p
     
  11. Cutting_Edgetech

    Cutting_Edgetech Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2006
    Posts:
    4,953
    Location:
    USA
    So Microsoft is a real AV, but Bitdefender, Avira, and WSA (Webroot) are not lol What a joke! Maybe they thought it was April already.
     
  12. DoctorPC

    DoctorPC Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2014
    Posts:
    813
    Agreed. I don't use F-Secure these days, but it's absolutely real, and fantastic.

    Also, apparently Immunet isn't real, therefore these detections in the last few hours on a machine here must be fake. (they are trojans, btw)
     

    Attached Files:

    • imm2.jpg
      imm2.jpg
      File size:
      67.3 KB
      Views:
      1,076
  13. Gullible Jones

    Gullible Jones Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 16, 2013
    Posts:
    1,461
    Just a thought: an AV could have high malware detection rates, but not be particularly useful for reverse engineers. Very strict heuristics could pick up malware without necessarily recognizing the family.

    He is right at least as far as ClamAV is concerned though. :rolleyes:
     
  14. Inside Out

    Inside Out Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2013
    Posts:
    421
    Location:
    Pangea
    It can also be an issue when it comes to removal. Likely that's why lighter, more "genericistic" AVs like Avira or Eset (whose detection rates are excellent now) are/were poor at it, because they wouldn't classify the detected malware accurately enough to apply the "right" removal routine.

    Correct me if it doesn't work that way.
     
    Last edited: Mar 28, 2014
  15. harshisthere

    harshisthere Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2011
    Posts:
    84
    I was thinking that if VT can provide us details with very good detection rate sorted by time. The antivirus able to detect more than 90% before others will be a good choice. We need to deduct false positive.
     
  16. lordraiden

    lordraiden Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2006
    Posts:
    3,080
    There was a website that uploaded malware to VT and showed statistics on real time about the detections. The problems is that the scanners on VT are simply the on demand version, so is not like the real time protection test that AVC does.

    Does someone remember this website?
     
  17. Inside Out

    Inside Out Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2013
    Posts:
    421
    Location:
    Pangea
  18. lucien_phoenix

    lucien_phoenix Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2012
    Posts:
    120
    Location:
    Germany
    i'am not using any Av's from this List !! :thumbd: :thumbd:

    i'am siting behind my Router (Fritzbox 3270)the only Security
    Solution i have is my Brain.exe,an a couple of on Demand Tools
    (Hitman Pro.Hitman Alert,Malwarebytes Antimalware Pro,and the
    Windows 7 Firewall.For me all seems fine,no Problems since a long
    Time.:thumb:
     
  19. lordraiden

    lordraiden Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2006
    Posts:
    3,080
    Congratulations...
     
  20. Baserk

    Baserk Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2008
    Posts:
    1,317
    Location:
    AmstelodamUM
    The criticism seems indeed more towards those who try to play catch-all using signatures than those who can accurately dissect samples.
    Hence the mentioned Sophos example of detecting malware but as a different trojan than the Zeus sample it actually is.
    Likely, an AV can't remove it properly, if it isn't detected properly.
     
  21. Frank the Perv

    Frank the Perv Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2005
    Posts:
    882
    Location:
    Virginia, USA

    When you scroll down and look at the overall stats -- "average, all the time," it's remarkable how that list stacks up.

    MBAM kicks ass
    McAfee is very surprisingly high
    Trend and Symantec are surprisingly low

    Interesting.
     
  22. Minimalist

    Minimalist Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2014
    Posts:
    5,085
    Wow, never saw ESET with such good results. :thumb:

    hqsec
     
  23. harshisthere

    harshisthere Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2011
    Posts:
    84
    Very Very useful information. Thanks. Do you know that there addon Blockulicious for chrome is any good if I am using Malware Domains list in adblock plus.
     
  24. Nightwalker

    Nightwalker Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2008
    Posts:
    786
    In my experience Eset has one of the best zero day detection, it is simple that good :thumb:
     
  25. DoctorPC

    DoctorPC Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2014
    Posts:
    813
    Some personal, independant tests, and threat honeypots show MBAM scoring in the 97-98%+ range. Considering it's widely regarded as a supplemental product - that's awesome. I was unable to infect a honeypot with Mbam+Immunet+Appguard running, regardless of what I threw it, it, and how much I threw at it. For me, I consider that combination to be the epitomy of perfect/nearperfect protection. That's with Immunet3 Free - no Clam/Bit..

    I've always held ESET in high regard. If I could find it for multiple machines cheap enough, I'd consider it. But as it stands - Mbam+Immunet alone is massive protection for most client machines I service, and I toss Appguard onto the high threat risk systems when needed. Can't lose IMO.
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.