The results of testing some antiviruses on fightin active infection, conducted by AM

Hi to everyone,

Here is the result of the test, conducted by Anti-Malware.ru Please, read it via Google Translator from Russian.

The results are astounding, but all the AV vendors seem to have reconciled themselves with them- no protests, just polite explanaitions and RECOGNITIONS ! that ...yes, this time we have failed.
Here is the methology of conducting this trying test:
http://antimalware.ru/node/668

 

Re: The results of testing some antiviruses on fightin active infection, conducted by

In short:

the following AV were tested in the most impotrant area antiviruse are meant for-curing ALREADY infested machines:

1. Avast! Professional Edition 4.8.1229
2. AVG Anti-Virus & Anti-Spyware 8.0.0.2
3. Avira AntiVir PE Premium 8.1.0.367
4. BitDefender Antivirus 2009 (12.0.10.1)
5. Dr.Web Anti-Virus 4.44.5.8080
6. Eset NOD32 Antivirus 3.0.669.0
7. F-Secure Anti-Virus 2009
8. Kaspersky Anti-Virus 2009 (8.0.0.357)
9. McAfee VirusScan 2008 (12.1.110)
10. Outpost Antivirus Pro 6.5.2358.316.0607
11. Panda Antivirus 2009
12. Sophos Antivirus 7.3.4
13. Norton AntiVirus 2009
14. Trend Micro Antivirus plus Antispyware 2008 (16.10.1182)
15. VBA32 Antivirus 3.12.8.6

The classification of the malware in accordance with Kaspersky Lab classification:

1. Adware. Win32.NewDotNet
2. Backdoor.Win32.Sinowal.ce
3. Email-Worm.Win32.Scano.bd
4. Rootkit.Win32.Agent.ea
5. Rootkit.Win32.Podnuha.a
6. Trojan-Dropper.Win32.Agent.vug
7. Trojan-Dropper.Win32.Mutant.e
8. Trojan-Proxy.Win32.Saturn.cu
9. Trojan-Proxy. Win32.Xorpix.dh
10. Trojan-Spy.Win32.Zbot.bsa
11. Trojan.Win32.Agent.lkz
12. Trojan.Win32.Monderb.gen
13. Trojan.Win32.Pakes.cuh
14. Trojan.Win32.Small.yc
15. Virus.Win32.Rustock.a

The tables of the results can be seen on the web page of the results

http://antimalware.ru/malware_treatment_test_2008
I may speak in circles, but after reading some comments of AV guys from AV companies, I understood that all antivirus companies had recognized the credibility of the test.

 

Re: The results of testing some antiviruses on fightin active infection, conducted by

It is indicative and revealing that the AVs with the strongest heuristics-VBA32, Eset, Sophos, Avira are the weakest in curing actively infested files.
Avira is superb and almost unrivaled in resident defence and detection, but when it is about healing an ALREADY compromised OS, I am compelled to turn to an old man-Dr.Web with its Dr.Web CureIt or Kaspersky Removal Tool.

 

as always kaspersky and Dr.Web showing a very good result ، impressive!!

 

Re: The results of testing some antiviruses on fightin active infection, conducted by

I wish Dr.Web were so perfect and strong in proactive protection and self-defence , but at least at the very moment Dr.Web is OBJECTIVELY the best healer or curer of infested comps among other antiviruses.

 

Re: The results of testing some antiviruses on fightin active infection, conducted by

It seems unbelievable, but all the AV vendors politely comment and ...obediently agree with the results of testing. Incredible...It's nice to know that serious companies can lose with dignity.
Avast is a real suptrise maker. Avast seems to have bought Gmer anti-rootkit technology and that is why such good results.

 

i really dont belive in this new malware ru avtest,
i dont know why but i feel like the user that tested the AV's is not to belive in 100%, but hey that's just me.

 

Re: The results of testing some antiviruses on fightin active infection, conducted by

Proactive protection and self-defence should be improved in the upcoming v5. 4.44 already has a decent heuristic analyzer, generic signatures, packer detections and the origins tracing technology.

 

Antivir will not let me open link

 

No problem opening with Avira Premium. Which version are you using and what message do you get?

 

WFM as well...

 

Webguard detected on the first link.Reported in Antivir as HEUR/HTML.Malware.

 

so sad about eset
because eset antivirus does not have self-defence

 

But this test doesn't have to do with self-defence, but with removal.

 

i think what proactivelover was trying to say is that since nod32 doesnt have self defence malware would easily be able to disable it and then nod32 wouldnt be able to remove the malware. i didnt relise nod32 removal rate was so bad.

 

Ah, I understand. That's another reason why it's always good to run a behaviour blocker/HIPS alongside with those kind of avs, so that you get alerted if anything tries to disable them.

 

lodore你解释感谢

 

Dr Web and Kaspersky, both Russian software, doing well in a Russian test - coincidence ?

 

Don't forget that Avira, F-secure, Symantec, .. etc "western" products have received good reviews from anti-malware.ru in the past.

 

Apparently yes

But those two products always get great scores at Anti-Malware's tests.....

 

Not in other areas (out of curing ALREADY infested machines), for example here:
http://www.anti-malware-test.com/?q=taxonomy/term/16
where Dr.Web is almost on the bottom line.

 

No surprise here.

The curing abilities is what was tested

 

Re: The results of testing some antiviruses on fightin active infection, conducted by

from avast site.........Anti-rootkit built-in

Another key feature of avast! antivirus 4.8 is the inclusion of anti-rootkit technology, based upon the class-leading GMER technology, and now built-in to the scan engine as standard.....
avast! antivirus 4.8 has full live-system anti-rootkit protection. No boot disks required, it's all built-in and working with one install.

 

Re: The results of testing some antiviruses on fightin active infection, conducted by

now avast have release avast! antirootkit tool (standalone) beta
visit this page
http://forum.avast.com/index.php?topic=33753.0

 

Re: The results of testing some antiviruses on fightin active infection, conducted by

Hello,
lastpost in that thread was march. see if you can find a final stand alone version?
could always download the file was first post and see how old the version is.