Discussion in 'other anti-virus software' started by guest, Aug 12, 2008.
That's it, I am re-visiting the Ikarus .... Looks like they're constantly good, tempting !!
has ikarus house-build engine?
Seems so, see https://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?t=192947
By the way, I had a look and changed my mind about Ikarus. Its way out of my 'personal' price league...
Aren't AVG and Ewido more or less the same ?
I took only a quick look.
I'm not sure what was being tested. Generally, I think that antivirus software should primarily deal with viruses and trojans.
But what other malware was being tested ? I don't think this gives an appropriate picture of the qualities of the tested products.
Avira delivers again.
Kav 7 or 8?
Since they use VT for testing, I guess KAV8
They're using VT to test the samples. AVG is still providing support for Ewido, so its still used as an engine on VT. Its upto AVG to withdraw Ewido from VT.
My only surprise is Microsoft. For last 2 months, it has consistently done good detection. If they just put some powerful heuristics on that, it would one strong AV contender ...
So if it is KAV 2009
And F-Secure uses Kaspersky's Engine.
Why does KAV 2009 have 0 heuristic detections.
And F-Secure has less overall detection without heuristics/suspicious then Kaspersky.
Actually F-Secure uses KAV6 I think not KAV8.
Also I am not sure with what settings VT is running the various engines.
F-Secure has implicitly heuristic enable/disable (If I remember correctly), where as in KAV it can be disable/light/medium/deep.
By default, F-Secure manual on-demand scan has heuristic enabled and KAV has light heuristic.
Just to double check, does KAV7 have heuristic scan disabled by default ? If yes, then its probably KAV7 and not KAV8 ...
You have to remember that F-Secure use their own heuristic. It's only the signature engine of Kaspersky that they use.
Free version of Rising AV is an ongoing "flavor of the day" here at Wilders -- having over 21K views and nearly 300 replies.
The above tests reveal that Rising-free is worth just exactly its price.
True, but still 0 heuristic detection of KAV ? Seems strange...
Been dropping plenty of hints about the value of Rising but for some reason it's developing a fanbase. I'm still curious why one would want to use an AV with horrible defs with a built-in HIPS that doesn't see AKLT would be preferable to something like Avira free + Theatfire.
i had a paid licence, its a good AV.
but seeing as i didnt use it, i gave it away to a wilders member.
Even their AS is improving, its as if MS suddenly decided to inject some serious life into it. Almost daily definition updates as well as frequent engine updates, looks to be a good contender in the AS field.
Actually, if I recall correctly, its not that they got better on their own - After the 1.0 product failed so miserably, they hired out a lot of top-tier talent from the other AV companies
Still, that strategy appears to be working.
MS hired enough people to run 3 AV companies. I expect them to be place 1 in 6-12 months. They are adding mostly generic detections, which are very good. I think they also got another advantage (so far): they are not really on the radar of the professional malware writers, so those professional malware writers do not yet adapt against their gens (only those in MRT). But MS can throw enough manpower at this problem to solve it when the malware writers start to target the MS AV.
You're speaking mainly about Windows One-Care, right? If so, the annual subscription price of $50 is a bit high for a 2nd tier AV with (AFAIK) no heuristics & no behavior blocker.
Besides -- am I the only one who has a problem with the idea of a company selling a security application designed (at least in large part) to plug the holes in an OS sold by that same company?
At the risk of being conspiratorial, it's almost as if the holes is the Operating Systems were intentional to make the AV purveyors a lot of money. If that was the case, it has worked fairly well as the AV industry is a billion dollar + business.
I don't think it would be intentional. If they made the operating system robust, the average user would most likely find it too difficult to use.
Look at UAC for example. Solid idea to improve protection. However, all the research points to most users 'just clicking yes' regardless of the message.
If the operating system was robust, it would not be difficult to use- it would be the exact opposite- it would be easy to use.
You think OS are easy to use now? You certainly are not using Windows. The problems of malware infection and dozens of other operational issues like deletions/restoring/imaging would not be issues if the OS was robust. The lack of robustness causes most of the problems.
What do you mean place 1 in 6-12 months? You cannot mean detection do you?
that is exactly what he means. As I have said. In less then a year they will win all tests perofrmed. And to those who feel, "queasy" about using a product to fix the holes caused by the developer I say, when your car is recalled due to sloppy design by the manufacturer, who fixes it under warranty. I thought so.