PC "Professional" Magazine AV "test"

Discussion in 'other anti-virus software' started by Happy Bytes, Dec 2, 2005.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Happy Bytes

    Happy Bytes Guest

    The results are here:

    1) GData Antivirenkit 2006 92,8%
    2) McAfee 2006 85,7%
    3) F-Secure AV 2006 83,7%
    4) H+BEDV AntiVir Premium 81,7%
    5) Panda Titanium 2006 80,3%
    6) Norton AV 2006 79,6%
    7) Bitdefender 9 Std. 79,3%
    8] Kaspersky Pro 5.0 77,2%
    9) NOD 2.5 Std 77,1%
    10) Zonealarm 2006 64,4%
    11) Norman AV 5.8 61,1%

    Ridiculous!
    When do these AMATEURS learn to stay far away from AV testing if they have no clue how to do it in a professional way. It's NOT enough that the magazines name is "PC Professional". I suggest they should print the next issues with AV tests as "PC Amateurish" :rolleyes:

    Best example of biased (sponsored?) testing! :mad:
    How else do you explain GData (uses KAV engine!!!) on place 1 and KAV itself on Place 8? :eek:
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 2, 2005
  2. mnosteele

    mnosteele Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2003
    Posts:
    181
    Location:
    Chesapeake, VA USA
    That is quite ridiculous, I have never seen a test so flawed, the top 2 (KAV & NOD32) ranked that low..... what a joke.

    :rolleyes:
     
  3. Cadoul

    Cadoul Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2005
    Posts:
    76
    Location:
    France
    And What surprise? Norman 61.1% vs Kav 77.2% vs NOD32 77.1%
    Nice Joke.
    Sincerly
    Cadoul From France
     
  4. Stefan Kurtzhals

    Stefan Kurtzhals AV Expert

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2003
    Posts:
    701
    Total joke, GDATA is using KAV & Bitdefender engines, how can it score better?
    And while I don't mind H+BEDV ranking that high - it is not realistic. yet. ;-)
     
  5. IBK

    IBK AV Expert

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2003
    Posts:
    1,818
    Location:
    Innsbruck (Austria)
    The numbers given above are not percentages; they are total points they gave based on various things.

    the detection percentages listed there are:
    F-Secure 99,5%
    Gdata 99,4%
    KAV 98,8%
    McAfee 97,5%
    Panda 97,5%
    Bitdefender 96,9%
    HBEDV 96,4%
    Symantec 95,1%
    Norman 87,0%
    NOD32 82,6%
    ZA 80,1%

    anyway some things look strange, like the missed itw samples for some products and the low percentages for some products.
     
  6. rdsu

    rdsu Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2003
    Posts:
    4,456
    I don't beleave on magazines tests...
     
  7. JimIT

    JimIT Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2003
    Posts:
    1,035
    Location:
    Denton, Texas
    What??

    I thought ALL AV "tests" had merit, and are useful! Surely this was a "real world" test that shows how AV's REALLY perform, because as we all know, the 'lab tests' are biased...At last, a test that shows NOD32's and Kaspersky's true colors!

    /sarcasm
     
  8. Happy Bytes

    Happy Bytes Guest

    The first question i would like to know is:
    Why does the tester perform his "test" on zipped files?
    Next question is: Why does he complain that some programs having "difficulties" to clean samples if he scans in the zipfile?
    Hey get a life! Cleaning samples from a ZIP Files doesn't say ANYTHING about the ability to clean real samples running on the system!
    Some Products do not even support cleaning from the Zip File (and no, thats not really needed!) it's much more important that the scanner can clean & disinfect samples running on the system!
     
  9. Happy Bytes

    Happy Bytes Guest

    And this is the non-plus-ultra:

    "PC professional coded several malware itself, based on the worm Kelly to check how the Antivirus Programs react." :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek:

    You should sue the guys for creating new malware versions! :eek:
    That's ridiculous - i've never seen any SERIOUS av tests where the tester codes its own malware :eek: With so much of experience i wouldn't be suprised if these amateurs actually would release new modificated malware in the wild :rolleyes:
     
  10. FastGame

    FastGame Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2005
    Posts:
    677
    Location:
    Blasters worm farm
  11. Wolfe

    Wolfe Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2005
    Posts:
    160
    ..rings a bell: have a look over here.
     
  12. jim_k

    jim_k Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2004
    Posts:
    51
    As if the fact that they coded their own malware isn't bad enough, they probably also used other kinds of crap samples.

    The percentages that IBK posted make sense, but the fact that the "points" were so different raises a lot more questions. The first thing to judge a scanner by should be the detection.
     
  13. Patrician

    Patrician Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2005
    Posts:
    132
    Well it does show how well your AV software cleans nasties out of Zip files.

    In your opinion. Others feel differently. I really wouldn't want all my emails deleted because my AV software didn't, or couldn't, delete nasties from the .dbx file.

    It's only a short step from being in a Zip file to being active. Surely better to get the little blighter as soon as possible.
     
  14. Edwin024

    Edwin024 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2004
    Posts:
    1,000
    He who pays gets the best result... Many G-Data adds in the magazine?
     
  15. auriell

    auriell Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2005
    Posts:
    105
    Location:
    Warsaw, Poland
    Patrician ---> What the "test" shows is maybe only how AVs perform on detecting and/or removing ziped malwares. Nothing more. And this is not enough for me. If you judge a car only by its fuel consumption it will not give you a picture of its real value and capabilities.
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.