PC World AV Chart

Discussion in 'other anti-virus software' started by eBBox, Apr 23, 2007.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. prius04

    prius04 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2007
    Posts:
    1,248
    Location:
    USA
    I just paid for NOD32 a couple of weeks ago and I *did* jump out the window. Fortunately, the window was on the first floor and I was unharmed.

    Still, I'm waiting for all hell to break loose. I'm scared to death that I'm going to get the Backdoor.Caligula-Hitler-Hussein-binLaden trojan that's circulating and, then, WHAM, my computers are useless and I won't be able to get any work done. After that, it's a slippery slope to criminality in order to make a living and I'll wind up in prison (not some white collar resort prison, either. I'll be going to Federal pound me in the a$$ prison).
     
  2. Firecat

    Firecat Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2005
    Posts:
    8,230
    Location:
    The land of no identity :D
    Thats the same test, but the 84 you refer to is actually the overall rating of the software which was reviewed by PC World, not the malware detection rating which was performed by AV-test.
     
  3. tamdam

    tamdam Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2007
    Posts:
    88
    very interesting test

    I wonder though, how do they test detection rates? Is it based on executing the samples or simply "dead" samples which are not executed? I think this would affect the results if they scanned "dead" samples, especially for something like KAV which includes a behaviour blocker. I can't really imagine them actually executing 1 million samples, lol.
     
  4. Thankful

    Thankful Savings Monitor

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2005
    Posts:
    6,023
    Location:
    New York City
    I would be interested in AV-Test's testing methodology. For example, Avast and AVG scored 2/12 = 16.66% for polymorphic virus detection in the recent on demand AV-Comparatives test. AV-Test scored these two AVs in the upper 80% regarding polymorphic detection. That's a huge discrepancy.
     
  5. rdsu

    rdsu Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2003
    Posts:
    4,537
    I think that depends on the samples that was used on the tests...
     
  6. Thankful

    Thankful Savings Monitor

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2005
    Posts:
    6,023
    Location:
    New York City
    As do the other numbers in the test.
     
  7. rdsu

    rdsu Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2003
    Posts:
    4,537
    Of course... :D

    Why we should never see and trust in only one test? ;)
     
  8. Firecat

    Firecat Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2005
    Posts:
    8,230
    Location:
    The land of no identity :D
    I *think* that AV-test's polymorphic test set was larger than AV-comparatives. AV-comparatives uses a set of samples which are not in priority for many vendors, that is why so many don't do that well in detecting the polymorphics.

    There have been far more polymorphics released than what you see on AV-comparatives, and it is possible AV-test included some of the other polymorphic malware as well. I'll see if I can get any further information. ;)
     
  9. Durad

    Durad Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2005
    Posts:
    594
    Location:
    Canada
    Can you email Marx to send us LOG FILES of tested AV scanners?

    I want to see 500000 in LOG FILES :D
     
  10. The Hammer

    The Hammer Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2005
    Posts:
    5,751
    Location:
    Toronto Canada
    Is there a spot on the AV-Test.org website to review test results for particullar Av's such as F-Prot?
     
  11. Firecat

    Firecat Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2005
    Posts:
    8,230
    Location:
    The land of no identity :D
    I got a reply from Erik Larkin at PC World. As confirmed earlier, all products were tested at maximum settings for determining the detection rate (of course :)). He also sent me the number of samples for each malware type that was used in the test:

    File viruses: 191029
    Macro viruses: 73117
    Script viruses: 1184
    Polymorphic viruses: 1895
    ActiveX controls: 9
    Backdoors: 107106
    Bots / Zombies: 97215
    Trojan Horses: 341993
    Adware samples: 14517
    Dialer: 56099

    Total: 884164

    Thanks to Mr.Larkin for the above information. :)
    This test has been very interesting for me, lots of good surprises here and there. ;)
     
  12. Firefighter

    Firefighter Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2002
    Posts:
    1,670
    Location:
    Finland
    For sure if you are talking about PC World. But the test in this thread was actually made by Av-test.org, so... :rolleyes:

    Maybe you are a bit right too, CAT QuickHeal won the latest VB 100 % Award 04-2007 but NOD32 did not, so the better av in this case was...;)

    Best regards,
    Firefighter!
     
  13. Marcos

    Marcos Eset Staff Account

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2002
    Posts:
    14,441
    The FP occurred just because of wrong heuristics settings used in the Linux version. The highest heuristic level was removed from Windows version about 2 years ago but for some reason it remained in the Linux version. Otherwise we would have gained the award again :)
     
  14. Firecat

    Firecat Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2005
    Posts:
    8,230
    Location:
    The land of no identity :D
    The question to be asked here is WHY did this heuristic setting remain? Bad testing? Negligence? Low priority?

    What I'm saying is that such mistakes ultimately cost Eset a VB100 award. Going to blame this thing and that thing isn't going to help (Not just Eset, but for anyone else), because in the end it was an Eset error anyway that caused the wrong heuristic settings to remain.

    So, the fact remains, Eset lost a VB100. But yes, it still detected all ITW malware, and of course, this doesn't mean Eset or NOD32 sucks.

    As for Firefighter's comment, you know he was joking Marcos, and all of us know NOD32 = 10000 times better than QuickHeal. :) ;)
     
  15. Marcos

    Marcos Eset Staff Account

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2002
    Posts:
    14,441
    I didn't say it wasn't our mistake that that setting remained unchanged, I merely wanted to explain that it may not be a big thing if an AV misses a VB100 award except for marketing purposes.
     
  16. Firecat

    Firecat Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2005
    Posts:
    8,230
    Location:
    The land of no identity :D
    Then I misinterpreted it, and thats my mistake. Sorry. :)
     
  17. lucas1985

    lucas1985 Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2006
    Posts:
    4,047
    Location:
    France, May 1968
    The number of adware and ActiveX samples seem low o_O
     
  18. Netherlands

    Netherlands Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2005
    Posts:
    159
    Well i tested it with the eicar test and it did only detect it when it was om my harddrive! So no detection in the HTTP stream :oops:
     
  19. Firefighter

    Firefighter Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2002
    Posts:
    1,670
    Location:
    Finland
  20. The Hammer

    The Hammer Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2005
    Posts:
    5,751
    Location:
    Toronto Canada
    Yes a good product if they could only get their resource usage down.
     
  21. Firefighter

    Firefighter Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2002
    Posts:
    1,670
    Location:
    Finland
    I have not tried the latest version of BDF, but how did Panda managed to get their product even lighter than NOD32? o_O Before it was said to be a REAL resource hog. :doubt:

    Best regards,
    Firefighter!

    Btw, it seems more or less like a stock market, you have to get a new av every quarter to get the best profit! :D
     
    Last edited: Apr 30, 2007
  22. Davidpr

    Davidpr Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 24, 2006
    Posts:
    92
    Have been using BD10 AV for a few months now and I like it a lot. I run it on two systems, one with 1 Gig and the other with 256 Mb RAM and I find that BD runs light with noslowdown on XP.
     
  23. Firecat

    Firecat Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2005
    Posts:
    8,230
    Location:
    The land of no identity :D
    Panda removed TruPrevent with Panda Antivirus 2007. And this is 85% of the reason why Panda is light now compared to before. :)

    As for BitDefender, yes they need to fix compatibility problems and resource usage. Apart from that, if they continue on this level of malware detection, they are going to seriously make some heads turn. ;)
     
  24. midway40

    midway40 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2006
    Posts:
    1,257
    Location:
    SW MS, USA
    I just performed the same test and it did give warning and blocked it before I answered the "do you want to run or save this file?" dialog box.

    http://img255.imageshack.us/img255/1004/nortonwarnkw4.th.jpg
     
  25. Netherlands

    Netherlands Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2005
    Posts:
    159
    Ok, strange i can't remeber that it detect that when i tested it :D
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.