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

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

sorry it's beta

 

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

Windfresh, thank you for opening this topic. My congratulations to winners!

This is our third antivirus test for active infection treatment and we can talk the results in terms of time. The thing is that there are just three vendors which hardworking on the ability to cure complicated malware - Dr.Web, Kaspersky, Avast (with help of buying Gmer). And we have another three (Symantec, Agnitum, Panda Security) which are good in that.

Look at the dynamics:
http://www.anti-malware.ru/images/act_inf_1.gif

The key question is why did other vendors do nothing to improve your products? Are they know for example about Bootkit or Rustok.c?

 

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

Good test Sergey Ilyin.

Nice read. I hope AV companies will act quickly to improve their cleaning capabilities.

 

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

Preferablly an AV gets 100% in prevention rather than detection or disinfection.

 

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

Pretty much impossible for an AV to score 100% in detection/prevention, given the necessarily reactive nature of a definitions based application.
And, after the fact (if you are unfortunate enough to get hit with a zero day malware, subsequently added to the defs) disinfection is very important indeed.
Detection/prevention are linked. Can't have the latter without the former..

How many forum posts have I read that said something like "My ABC AV warned me about a trojan and quarantined it but after reboot, it's still there...."?
Hundreds.
I've been that poster. (Long time ago, though. Installed Avast after that episode. )

 

plz explain.......from 2007 to 2008....
Dr.web has gone from 30% to 100%
Avast has gone from 40% to 80%
but Kaspersky just 70% to 80%...?

http://www.anti-malware.ru/images/act_inf_1.gif

 

what about eset looks like its gone down hill if im looking at the right bar.

 

avast! is from Czech and it scored just as well as Kaspersky.

 

What do you need explanation on? - the numbers and notes are pretty self-explanatory...

Factors affecting results - AV version, removal procedure, sample used, OS

 

my point is that in one year the other two vis-i-vis their earlier versions increased by 70% and 40 % but kas just by 10% even though kis2009 and kav2009 were launched.....so should'nt the %age increase be more or the test is skwed

 

1) Different samples are used... some samples some AVs will successfully remove, others, they may not
2) Although AVs get more sophisticated, so does malware, making malware which is harder to remove over time
2) The higher you are, the more difficult it is to squeeze out more %
eg, Think about an exam...
Paul got 10% in his exam
John got 95%
Its much easier for Paul to get a higher % in his next exam (because he's got 90% extra to get)... John has only got 5% extra to get, much less extra available to much harder to get.

 

well.... the next test result would be interesting then.......for Dr.web cureit will start at 100% so no where to go except down and avast ,avira and kis would all try to squeeze in the proverbial 5%.....

 

The test results are now available in English ;-)

Testing of antiviruses for the treatment of active infections III

 

Great
I think you should translate more news in english, it's boring to open google translate every time.

 

My own opinion is that installing an AV on an infected system in order to clean it up is ill advised ,like building your house on quicksand.There are plenty of Anti-Malware tools and portable AV scanners specifically designed to do this.

 

Removal of infections is not only needed in the case of users installing AVs on infected systems. Removal is also needed in the case of undetected infection(s) on the system and updates by the AV which do detect the malware, after its infected the system.

 

I'd expect the AVs to score considerably higher on removal of malware that infects after installation rather than installing upon an already compromised system.The likes of MBAM,AVZ and SAS are much more geared toward this kind of scenario.