VB100, again

Discussion in 'other anti-virus software' started by Diver, Apr 3, 2008.

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

    Diver Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2005
    Posts:
    1,444
    Location:
    Deep Underwater
    Check this out:

    http://www.channelregister.co.uk/2008/04/03/vista_sp1_av_tests/

    In short:

    McAfee, Trend , and Sophos failed (Top Tier Vendors)

    Others that Failed:
    Alwil, BitDefender, Norman, PC Tools, and VirusBuster


    Products from Symantec, Microsoft, AVG, and Kaspersky Lab all passed.

    Polymorphic viruses were the cause of much trouble.
     
  2. JasSolo

    JasSolo Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 9, 2007
    Posts:
    414
    Location:
    Denmark
    ESET have passed 32 times in a row, haven't missed, since April 2002.
    Symantec have passed 37 times in a row, haven't missed, since September 1999.
    Quite impressive. NO other AV's are close to those figures.


    Cheers
     
    Last edited: Apr 3, 2008
  3. lucas1985

    lucas1985 Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2006
    Posts:
    4,047
    Location:
    France, May 1968
    A complete list:
    - Passed: AEC/Trustport, AVG/Grisoft, Avira, CA (various products), Eset, Fortinet, FRISK, F-Secure, GDATA/AVK, Kaspersky, Kingsoft, Microsoft, MicroWorld/eScan, Redstone (?), Symantec.
    - Failed: Agnitum (4 wildlist misses), AhnLab (2 wildlist misses), Alwil/avast! (19 wildlist misses, 1 false positive), BitDefender/SOFTWIN (2 wildlist misses), Bullguard (2 wildlist misses), Doctor Web (47 wildlist misses), Hauri (3 wildlist misses), Ikarus (24 wildlist misses, 6 false positives), K7 Computing (19 wildlist misses, 2 false positives), McAfee (1 wildlist miss), Norman (1 false positive), PC Tools AntiVirus (4 wildlist misses), CAT QuickHeal (2 false positives), Rising (3 wildlist misses, 1 false positive), Security Coverage PC Live (859 wildlist misses, 1 false positive), Sophos (2 wildlist misses), Trend Micro (3 wildlist misses, 2 false positives), VirusBuster (4 wildlist misses), Webroot (2 wildlist misses)
     
  4. GES/POR

    GES/POR Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2006
    Posts:
    1,490
    Location:
    Armacham
    DRWeb 47 Wildlist Misses
    Ikarus 24 Wildlist Misses
    Avast 19 Wildlist Misses

    :eek:
     
  5. GES/POR

    GES/POR Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2006
    Posts:
    1,490
    Location:
    Armacham
    Avira History: 2 failures total
    Eset History: 3 failures total
    Symantec: History: 6 failures total
     
  6. Jadda

    Jadda Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2007
    Posts:
    422
    Norman with one false positive. So close!

    Symantec, F-Secure, Eset, Avira is all doing good as always.
     
  7. lucas1985

    lucas1985 Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2006
    Posts:
    4,047
    Location:
    France, May 1968
    IIRC, ESET's failures have been FPs, never an ITW miss since 1998. And the records are even more impresive when you look at the number of participations of ESET and Symantec (not sure about Avira)
     
  8. JasSolo

    JasSolo Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 9, 2007
    Posts:
    414
    Location:
    Denmark
    Quite right, BUT Avira has only been tested 14 times.
    ESET has been tested 52 times
    Symantec has been tested 49 times


    Cheers
     
  9. lucas1985

    lucas1985 Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2006
    Posts:
    4,047
    Location:
    France, May 1968
    Yep, Eset and Symantec are the "800 pound gorillas" of VB100
     
  10. GES/POR

    GES/POR Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2006
    Posts:
    1,490
    Location:
    Armacham
    Exactely my point. Eset and Norton wins when it comes to number of participation times and Avira wins this on succesratio. Now choose wisely what is most relevant.
     
  11. Diver

    Diver Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2005
    Posts:
    1,444
    Location:
    Deep Underwater
    Yeah, kind of a shock. The rest of this stuff about past track records of x, y or z is nice, but not nearly as important as current performance.
     
  12. bellgamin

    bellgamin Very Frequent Poster

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2002
    Posts:
    5,648
    Location:
    Hawaii
    Good job. Thanks for counteracting the fanboy's post.

    I wonder why VBA32 is not included in these tests?
     
  13. Macstorm

    Macstorm Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2005
    Posts:
    2,531
    Location:
    Sneffels volcano
    It's the complete picture ;)
    Thanks
     
  14. solcroft

    solcroft Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2006
    Posts:
    1,639
    Just a few notes:

    1. VB100% tests with default settings. Otherwise, I really doubt Ikarus would've missed any samples. Of course, chances are it still wouldn't pass the certification test, because then it'd probably kick up a few FPs.

    2. avast! has yet to add detection for the April 1st variant(s) of Nuwar/Zhelatin/Peacomm/whatever they call it. Their latest results don't bode well either. :(
     
  15. kinwolf

    kinwolf Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2006
    Posts:
    271
    VB100 test are done on submited product by the vendor. If they do not submit a product they are not tested. So, VBA must not have submit a product to test on Vista SP1.
     
  16. Bunkhouse Buck

    Bunkhouse Buck Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2007
    Posts:
    1,056
    Location:
    Las Vegas
    Even though all of the above take some occasional heat in this forum (especially Symantec), they perform well in terms of the VB100 test and AV-Comparatives as well. Maybe there is a pattern here? But of course we are not supposed to say that this AV is better than that AV, etc.
     
  17. JasSolo

    JasSolo Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 9, 2007
    Posts:
    414
    Location:
    Denmark
    Not quite. If you put it in percent you get a more correct picture.

    Eset - 5,8% Failure
    Symantec - 12,2% Failure
    Avira - 14,2% Failure

    Plus Eset & Symantec hasen't failed during the the hole period that Avira have been tested...So:)

    But again as GES/POR said: Choose wisely what is most relevant.
    And this is not meant to be a "Which is better than that AV", so if it looks like that from my responses, I apologize


    Cheers
     
    Last edited: Apr 4, 2008
  18. Bunkhouse Buck

    Bunkhouse Buck Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2007
    Posts:
    1,056
    Location:
    Las Vegas
    Note the best long term performers also passed the most recent test. Therefore, the past track record (if good) is predictive of the future. In this case, there is a high correlation between past performance and future performance.
     
    Last edited: Apr 4, 2008
  19. RejZoR

    RejZoR Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2004
    Posts:
    6,426
    Of course you can't compare by failure/pass between products that have been tested since the very first VB100% test and those joined year or two ago...
     
  20. JasSolo

    JasSolo Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 9, 2007
    Posts:
    414
    Location:
    Denmark
    Ok, let's compare since Avira joined then.

    Eset: 0% Failure
    Symantec: 0% Failure
    Avira: 14,2% Failure


    Cheers
     
  21. Macstorm

    Macstorm Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2005
    Posts:
    2,531
    Location:
    Sneffels volcano
    hmmm...even better picture now :thumb:
     
  22. Macstorm

    Macstorm Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2005
    Posts:
    2,531
    Location:
    Sneffels volcano
    Not Avira's fault i guess..
    plus, i like av-c & av-test.org reviews better ;)
     
  23. JasSolo

    JasSolo Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 9, 2007
    Posts:
    414
    Location:
    Denmark
    Yep me too, and then again, they are only tests ALL of them. Stick to what's best for YOUR rig, temper, wallet, favorite GUI, whatever turns you on, and you should be home safe :D


    Cheers
     
  24. krokodil_bb

    krokodil_bb Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2007
    Posts:
    86
    Location:
    BB
    Doctor Web (47 wildlist misses)

    Doctor Web (47 wildlist misses) :eek:
    There must be some deeper problem with this av.
     
  25. Macstorm

    Macstorm Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2005
    Posts:
    2,531
    Location:
    Sneffels volcano
    Re: Doctor Web (47 wildlist misses)

    I think they priorize russian malware over the rest :doubt:
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.