The least false positives

Discussion in 'other anti-virus software' started by Albinoni, Oct 25, 2006.

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

    Albinoni Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2005
    Posts:
    709
    Location:
    Perth, Western Australia
    Which AV has had the least false positives, being both free or paid.
     
  2. ashishtx

    ashishtx Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2005
    Posts:
    389
    Location:
    Houston,Texas
    I know the av which has least false positives and most people don't like it ---------Norton.
     
  3. JerryM

    JerryM Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2003
    Posts:
    4,221
    I don't have a clue, and wonder where such information is gleaned.
    Maybe such test organizations such as AV Comparatives has such data. I think that is a factor in the Proactive tests.

    Jerry
     
  4. dah145

    dah145 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2006
    Posts:
    262
    Location:
    n/a
    KAV doesnt give so many FPs. :)
     
  5. Perman

    Perman Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2005
    Posts:
    2,160
    Hi,folks: good question. I would equate the quality of AV to the optimal balance of these two: rate of virus detection and frequency of F.P. AV w/ the least F.P. may not be effective at all, but by the same token, no risk no gain, AV w/ aggresive approach tends to produce more F.P. So what you say?:isay:
     
  6. Albinoni

    Albinoni Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2005
    Posts:
    709
    Location:
    Perth, Western Australia
    Well to answer your Q here, I always thought that NOD32 had the least false positives and even less than KAV.
     
  7. n8chavez

    n8chavez Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2003
    Posts:
    2,302
    Location:
    Location Unknown
    I would have to disagree with that statement. Of course, I have no actual proof but it seem that the very nature of NOD32 versus KAV; heuristic versus signatures, would allow KAV to have fewer FPs. The more frequently signatures are updated the more frequently mistakes can be corrected. NOD on the other hand does not update it's engine as often as KAV does it's signatures and thus has fewer opportunities for correction. Of course this is just speculation.

    Nate
     
  8. ashishtx

    ashishtx Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2005
    Posts:
    389
    Location:
    Houston,Texas
  9. Marcos

    Marcos Eset Staff Account

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2002
    Posts:
    14,374
    Quite the contrary, ThreatSense enables NOD32 to minimize the number of false positives. In most cases it's that tools for remote administration are flagged as NewHeur_PE by advanced heuristics, but actually I wouldn't call it a false positive as these tools are detected as Potentially dangerous applications due to the fact that they can be exploited for malicious purposes. Based on my observation I'd say that on average we receive one such file per week.
     
  10. n8chavez

    n8chavez Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2003
    Posts:
    2,302
    Location:
    Location Unknown
    Well there you go. If worse comes to worse ask the people that actually know what the hell they're talking about. Because I apparentlly don't.
     
  11. C.S.J

    C.S.J Massive Poster

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2006
    Posts:
    5,029
    Location:
    this forum is biased!
    i agree with this person :)

    norton has the least false positives in my opinion, but i dont agree with people not liking it, well ... hating all versions 'up to' but not including 2007. :D

    i didnt think norton had it in them to create such good software in their 2007 product line.
     
  12. pykko

    pykko Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2005
    Posts:
    2,236
    Location:
    Romania...and walking to heaven
    NOD32 gives few FPs. ;)
     
  13. larryb52

    larryb52 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2006
    Posts:
    1,126
    nod32 & Norton...
     
  14. Technodrome

    Technodrome Security Expert

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2002
    Posts:
    2,140
    Location:
    New York
    Norton, Pc-Cillin and Sophos av are known to give minimum FPs.


    tD
     
  15. pykko

    pykko Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2005
    Posts:
    2,236
    Location:
    Romania...and walking to heaven
    well, yes! Norton gives also few FPs. Their heuristic engine is not so great as to give many FPs. :D
     
  16. Inspector Clouseau

    Inspector Clouseau AV Expert

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2006
    Posts:
    1,329
    Location:
    Maidenhead, UK
    The last one was known for this until someone had this glorious idea to flag almost every runtime packed file as "Mal/Packer".
     
  17. C.S.J

    C.S.J Massive Poster

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2006
    Posts:
    5,029
    Location:
    this forum is biased!
    erm ...

    but isnt their detection about 99% ? with hardly, 'if any' false positives?
     
  18. Firefighter

    Firefighter Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2002
    Posts:
    1,670
    Location:
    Finland
    I don't know if that is even measurable. If some av flags add-/spywares, hacktools, keyloggers or other riskware, there are too many opinions if they are infections or not! :D

    At first, someone has to specify what is a FP at all. :cool:

    Best regards,
    Firefighter!
     
  19. JerryM

    JerryM Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2003
    Posts:
    4,221
    See why I don't have a clue? :D :D

    Jerry
     
  20. pykko

    pykko Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2005
    Posts:
    2,236
    Location:
    Romania...and walking to heaven
    well, they have many defs ;)
     
  21. echtp

    echtp Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2005
    Posts:
    30

    You can find the answer at http://www.av-comparatives.org. You should read the 'reports' And the answer is... Norton!
     
  22. Alphalutra1

    Alphalutra1 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2005
    Posts:
    1,160
    Location:
    127.0.0.0/255.0.0.0
    Pykko said that their heuristic detection isn't that strong, which means that less files are likely to be flagged as malware. 99% is about their definition based detection anyways. Look at the retrospective results ;)

    Most corporate avs I know of have minimal fp's based on the fact that they don't max out the heuristic engine since if a fp was found, then all hell would break loose and I would not want to be an administrator of that network.

    Alphalutra1
     
  23. C.S.J

    C.S.J Massive Poster

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2006
    Posts:
    5,029
    Location:
    this forum is biased!
    yep as i said,

    norton 0 false positives
    avg 3 false positives
    avira 25 false positives
     
  24. one111

    one111 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2005
    Posts:
    92
    Norton has the least false positives as far as I know. Actually I've been using Norton for years now and can't recall even one.

    This, along with their top detection rates (99%) makes it one of the top choices
    in today's market.

    I don't know why the groupies of Kaspersky and Nod32 look for every opportunity to degrade this top of the line product.
     
  25. lodore

    lodore Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2006
    Posts:
    9,006
    cos we have used old versions and have not been happy with em.
    i used to use norton and the live update failed almost once every week and had to uninstall the liveupdate and reinstall it and it was such and pain and back then this was 2003 version it only updated once a week what a joke IMO and had to keep running intill all the updates come and reboot in the middle just like windows update. i havent tryed it since 2003 and dont intend trying it again. im about to install nod32 in the next few days if my dad lets me...

    just my opinion and my experience
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.