VB100% February 2007

Discussion in 'NOD32 version 2 Forum' started by ASpace, Feb 7, 2007.

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

    ASpace Guest

    VB 100% award , again ! No. 42 . Windows Vista fully protected ! Congratulations , ESET! :thumb:

    www.virusbtn.com
     
  2. pykko

    pykko Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2005
    Posts:
    2,236
    Location:
    Romania...and walking to heaven
    nothing new... they're detecting all ITW viruses and no FPs, as long as they know the viruses before... peace of cake. av-test.org is more reliable here, and I'm waiting also for av-comparatives.org test.
     
  3. ASpace

    ASpace Guest

    MS OneCare (and other, will not mention them) failed . ;)
     
  4. pykko

    pykko Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2005
    Posts:
    2,236
    Location:
    Romania...and walking to heaven
    yes, I've seen and that amused me... Anyway, it's a good thing for NOD32 to get the award, but they have still to improve at adding signatures. That's my oppinion. :)
     
  5. rdsu

    rdsu Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2003
    Posts:
    4,456
    Congratulations, ESET! :D
     
  6. C.S.J

    C.S.J Massive Poster

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2006
    Posts:
    5,029
    Location:
    this forum is biased!
    vista users,

    how can GDATA, mcafee, norman, MICROSOFT fail the vb100 for vista?

    sounds poor to me.
     
  7. ASpace

    ASpace Guest

    Either because they didn't detect all the In-the-Wild malware or because they generated a false-positive alarm
     
  8. webyourbusiness

    webyourbusiness Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2004
    Posts:
    2,640
    Location:
    Throughout the USA and Canada
    I think the irony of M$'s own solution failing is staggering... ;)
     
  9. pykko

    pykko Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2005
    Posts:
    2,236
    Location:
    Romania...and walking to heaven
    yes... shocking, but true. :D
     
  10. chinaboy

    chinaboy Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2007
    Posts:
    1
    我怎么不知道。
     
  11. rothko

    rothko Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2005
    Posts:
    579
    Location:
    UK
  12. Blackspear

    Blackspear Global Moderator

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2002
    Posts:
    15,115
    Location:
    Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia
    Hi chinaboy, welcome to Wilders.

    English only please. Many thanks for your understanding.

    Cheers :D
     
  13. pykko

    pykko Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2005
    Posts:
    2,236
    Location:
    Romania...and walking to heaven
    I do not know how. - that's the translation of what chinaboy said. :D
     
  14. trjam

    trjam Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2006
    Posts:
    9,057
    Location:
    North Carolina
    chinaboy, use this to help you translate. They really will assist you but need it in English.
    http://world.altavista.com/
    then copy and paste your translation into the reply box for Wilders.
     
  15. EQ2

    EQ2 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2007
    Posts:
    39
    Are you sure av-test is more reliable than vb100%?I don't think so.Beacuse one of the tests says that Rising Antivirus is betterr than many antivirus,for example:symantec,VBA32,Dr.web and so on,but in fact Rising Antiviru is not good,if you use,you will konw it.
     
  16. iloveyou

    iloveyou Former Poster

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2006
    Posts:
    5
    other translation :"why i dont know?":D
     
  17. GES/POR

    GES/POR Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2006
    Posts:
    1,490
    Location:
    Armacham
    Can anyone paste the results on other av's 2? I am wondering how far behind avira was.
     
  18. solcroft

    solcroft Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2006
    Posts:
    1,639
    Have YOU used Rising?

    Anyway, the fact remains that most products that fail nowadays actually do so on technical reasons instead of actual detection rates. As long as Virus Bulletin insists on using only ~800 viruses, 2-year-old samples and releasing the virus list to vendors before the test, they'll continue to be irrelevent in providing authoritative testing in terms of detection rates as far as I'm concerned.
     
  19. flyrfan111

    flyrfan111 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2004
    Posts:
    1,224

    If it were just that easy, then every AV would pass. Most that fail do so because of false positives. A few missed detections as well, but more common are FPs.
     
  20. solcroft

    solcroft Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2006
    Posts:
    1,639
    As unfortunate as it is, there ARE products that don't even meet that low standard, or products that get failed on a technicality (wrong default settings, OS inconsistencies etc) or false positive. I just don't see why I should trust a product's detection rates simply because it's passed a test of 800 virus-only samples (trojans + other malware not included) and the vendor was informed of the virus samples used beforehand.
     
  21. flyrfan111

    flyrfan111 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2004
    Posts:
    1,224
    John Hawes, technical consultant at Virus Bulletin, said: "The items added to our set of known clean files this month mostly consisted of common items taken from the 'most-popular' lists of free download sites, so it is a concern that the additions have caused such an upsurge in false detections.
    "A false positive can cause as much disruption as a virus infection. False warnings often lead end-users to delete valid files in the belief that they are some form of attack and the resultant damage can be significant," he added.

    The entire article can be read here;
    http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/08/03/64bitvista_av_tests/

    Unlike other certification schemes, Virus Bulletin tests all products free of charge and does not allow re-testing. Virus Bulletin's comparative reviews also cover other performance aspects including detection rates against a selection of viruses never seen outside the lab of anti-virus vendors as well as looking at scanning speeds and performance overheads for anti-malware products.


    I have never heard of a failure for settings before.
     
  22. solcroft

    solcroft Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2006
    Posts:
    1,639
    A technical consultant trumpeting the relevence of his organization's tests, hmm. For some reason I don't see how that means Virus Bulletin tests need to be taken any more seriously.

    Ah nevermind, I see you edited your earlier post to attack from the FP angle instead.
     
  23. flyrfan111

    flyrfan111 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2004
    Posts:
    1,224
    FPs can create quite a mess. For the record I pay more attention to AV Comparatives and Av Test.org than I do to VB. Just playing devil's advocate.
     
  24. LowWaterMark

    LowWaterMark Administrator

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2002
    Posts:
    17,878
    Location:
    New England
    This thread was for the February 2007 test, which a poster above bumped after nearly 6 months solely to add an extra English translation to some Chinese text. As this test and the few since this one have been discussed in the other anti-virus section, this thread is now closed.

    There was just a thread started on this month's issue here:

    https://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?t=181578

    As for how all the other AVs did in the Feb 2007 test, the archives of back issues can be viewed at this page:

    http://www.virusbtn.com/virusbulletin/archive/2007
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.