Virus Bulletin April 2007 - Linux Server

Only quickresults publicly available (requires free registration) at

http://www.virusbtn.com/vb100/archive/2007/04

Alwil Status: PASS
Avira Status: PASS
CA eTrust Status: FAIL
CAT QuickHeal Status: PASS
Doctor Web Status: FAIL
Eset Status: FAIL
FRISK Status: FAIL
F-Secure Status: PASS
Grisoft Status: PASS
Kaspersky Status: PASS
McAfee Status: PASS
MicroWorld Status: FAIL
Norman Status: PASS
Sophos Status: PASS
Symantec Status: PASS
VirusBuster Status: PASS

 

that looks like normal results but im surprised that eset failed.
anyone know why?
lodore

 

Two possible reason :
either a false positive or missed a virus

 

1 false alarm due improved DOS heuristic (flagged as "probably ...").

 

not so bad.

 

Not fully correct. 32 missed DOS Samples as well. (32 Replicated Samples)

Edit: Just to clarify: That's the printed reason, however the heuristic f/p is the reason for denied award

 

So, ESET missed 32 DOS viruses (replicated from a unique variant or 32 variants?) and had a FP generated by heuristics?
What about FRISK?

 

http://ryanduff.net/images/wordpress/chickenlittle.jpg

 

So, Eset's record of VB100 is finally broken

Lets see what Eset comes up with this time....Anyway, strange thing is...MicroWorld fails and Kaspersky passes?

 

In case of MicroWorld, i'd say false positives...

 

From where? It uses KAV engine, the only place FPs would come from is their own MWAV tool, which also uses their custom spyware detection engine. However, the on-access and on-demand scans in the commercial version of eScan do not use this engine, as far as I know...

 

I don't like MicroWorld, its buggy as hell. But yeah the result surprised me. Eset didn't surprise me. Frankly speaking it had to come one day. Quickheal is doing good in VB but they should really fix their f/p problem with packers. I guess they are taking one step at a time.

One question to the experts, how much threat does those DOS bugs pose now? I mean do you really get such incidence in real world?

 

Hey , nothing so bad has happened . This is not the first time since 1998 when ESET misses VB100% award . This is the 4th time NOD32 misses VB100% award since 1998 . But it still remains the one that have more VB100% awards than any other product

 

I am very disappointed . As long as I rememer myself , I have always been able to download the VirusBulletin report to see how vendors perform . However , now I can't because they want me pay them 175 USD .

 

Obviously you don't understand it. Though i'd expect you would...
Base engine might be KAV's, but they use their own heuristics, be it based on KAV engine or their own. Still it produces large amounts of false positives.

 

Their own heuristics? Now this is new to me. No wonder I do not understand.

In the time I used it, they were using KAV's own heuristic only...though there were a bunch of "suspicious" detections logged which would not be reported on the main GUI itself during scanning (you'd have to see the log to get this), but I never figured this.

 

eSafe has many FP's. I used their on-demand scanner that wes FREE durin last 2-3 months.

 

http://www.virusbtn.com/news/vb_news/2007/05_04.xml?rss=

 

Flawless perfection , as always Congratulations , ESET !