Which is the best AT program?

Discussion in 'other anti-trojan software' started by brjoon1021, Sep 19, 2005.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. brjoon1021

    brjoon1021 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2005
    Posts:
    143
    BOClean, Ewido, A2, or other? I mean in terms of real-time scanning. I am not that interested in removal at this point, I will use everything available for removal. I am looking for a good real-time defense.

    Thanks

    B.
     
  2. abhi_mittal

    abhi_mittal Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2005
    Posts:
    887
    Location:
    Bangalore
    I guess BOCLEAN...
     
  3. rdsu

    rdsu Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2003
    Posts:
    4,456
    I will choose, ewido :)
     
  4. ErikAlbert

    ErikAlbert Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2005
    Posts:
    9,455
    I use Ewido Free and A2 Free and if there was a BOClean Free, I would use that one too.
    One AT scanner isn't enough. What BOCLean doesn't remove, could be removed by Ewido or A2 or even by my other AV/AS scanners, if I'm very lucky.
    Thank you for your attention. :)
     
  5. Blackcat

    Blackcat Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2002
    Posts:
    4,010
    Location:
    Christchurch, UK
    BUT these free versions will do nothing for his real time defense which he requested.

    Before considering any of the commercial AT scanners for real time protection look at how good your primary AV scanner is at trojan detection.

    For example if you have KAV, McAfee, AntiVir and maybe NOD this may be sufficient, particularly if you backup your primary AV with the free on-demand AT scanners suggested.
     
  6. Don Pelotas

    Don Pelotas Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2004
    Posts:
    2,257
    Ok, then i will choose both. Since i like them both. :D
     
  7. The Hammer

    The Hammer Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2005
    Posts:
    5,619
    Location:
    Toronto Canada
    BOClean for me.
     
  8. unhappy_viewer

    unhappy_viewer Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2005
    Posts:
    259
  9. ErikAlbert

    ErikAlbert Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2005
    Posts:
    9,455
    Sorry. This is my n'th mistake and you are very right.
    So no real-time protection against Trojans for me. :)
     
  10. The Hammer

    The Hammer Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2005
    Posts:
    5,619
    Location:
    Toronto Canada
    The reviews are a little old. They date from Aug 2004 and several have launched new versions and one (TDS-3) was discontinued recently.
     
  11. Don Pelotas

    Don Pelotas Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2004
    Posts:
    2,257
    You can't use this "test" for anything, it only used 16 trojan samples, which is simply not enough, you need a lot more to be credible. :)
     
  12. unhappy_viewer

    unhappy_viewer Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2005
    Posts:
    259
    Actually the website was just updated. If you have beenk keeping up with the page, for example Ewido was in his highly recommended category at the beginning of this year but he decided to upgrade its position to outstanding. He has only forgotten to update the copright dates at the bottom of the page. And he has acknowledge TDS-3 has stopped being supported:
    But he has chosen his trojans carefully based on their capabilities to harm computers(e.g. disabling AV and AT programs) and difficulty in getting it removed. We all may feel certain tests are inadequate. For exmple I question AV-Comparatives' test methodology. In the end its which pogram suits us best and his review also other factors such as resource usage, support, and the what each AT program does to prevent itself from malfunctioning.
     
  13. Don Pelotas

    Don Pelotas Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2004
    Posts:
    2,257
    This is exactly why you can't use the detection part of this review, because with so few samples, he could easily have choosen samples that would make the AT with the best overall detection, detect very (maybe zero) little and make a really bad AT detect all 16 samples, you need a lot more to make any meaningfull test we are talking thousands of samples, not 10-20. :)
     
  14. Siro

    Siro Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2004
    Posts:
    92
    TDS 3 was great but trojan hunter is not far behind in my opinion has good detection rates...
     
  15. muf

    muf Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2003
    Posts:
    926
    Location:
    Manchester, England
    16 samples. It's comical. Plain and simple as that. Comical.
     
  16. tazdevl

    tazdevl Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 17, 2004
    Posts:
    837
    Location:
    AZ, USA
    The tests are a joke. With respect to "just updating the site", the reviewer added a comment to the site to make readers aware of the situation regarding TDS3. There is no indication that he has run any new tests based on the dates in the reviews.

    I believe there have been new versions of A2, Ewido, BOClean and TH released since August 2004. Kind of invalidates the test.
     
  17. TNT

    TNT Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2005
    Posts:
    948
    I agree. I can't believe anybody can take this test seriously. 16 samples? You can find more in half an hour of 'hunting' in the wild.
     
  18. JRCATES

    JRCATES Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2005
    Posts:
    1,203
    Location:
    USA
    OK, I suggest for those ripping and blasting the test that this man conducted, to pool your talents and create your own trojan test. If you don't like a freebie sample and think it is "inadequate", stop talking and start acting. I, and I'm sure others will as well, be interested in seeing the test that you have put together as well as the results......
     
  19. muf

    muf Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2003
    Posts:
    926
    Location:
    Manchester, England
    I'm not qualified to do such a thing. But if i tried it and posted the results on the net based on 16 samples then i would expect people to laugh at my test. Which is exactly what is happening here. Crikey, do we take every test as a serious evaluation. What's next, a test based on 6 samples? How about 10 year old Joey doing his own tests hey. The guy on that site is an inkjet salesman for pity's sake. Maybe in his next test he might stretch himself and conduct the test against 17 samples. Wuw! There are thousands of trojans in existance, obviously not all in the wild. But they are available from the right sources. So it doesn't take a genius to work out that 16 is just plain silly.

    muf
     
  20. Don Pelotas

    Don Pelotas Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2004
    Posts:
    2,257
    Are you saying that we are not allowed to post our opinions on this? The reason why we should not be making such a test public should be obvious, as obvious as 16 samples is not enough to publish a "review" that some will actually go out and buy an anti-trojan on it's ranking.

    JR, you could download 32 trojans tonight and try them with some AT's, but it would not make you a credible source if you posted it as a review, even if you made a really fancy site without links to discount inkjetcartridges. :)
     
  21. The Hammer

    The Hammer Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2005
    Posts:
    5,619
    Location:
    Toronto Canada
    I don't know when the latest version of Ewido(3.5) was released but it appears the version tested was 3.0, and the version of BOClean tested is not the latest version 4.12 which was released in Jan /05.
     
  22. Brandon

    Brandon Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2005
    Posts:
    222
    BOClean for me also :)

    Regards,

    Brandon
     
  23. JRCATES

    JRCATES Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2005
    Posts:
    1,203
    Location:
    USA
    I would simply like to see a test, Don, and even if it was 32 samples, I would still like to see a test. Therefore, I appreciate someone who is conducting a test for free, even if it is not very "scientific".

    What does this mean? It means that NOBODY is doing any tests! While this test should not "prove" anything to anybody, AT LEAST this man did do a test! And if this man's job was to test anti-trojan products, then of course he would deserve to be ripped for conducting a test with such a small sample base. But the fact is he reviews and tests hundreds of product CATEGORIES (therefore, hundreds and hundreds of various product lines).....so he likely doesn't have the time, desire or ability to devote a huge sample size of trojans for reviewing various different AT products. And since the results are posted for free, and nobody is required to view or acknowledge the results, I don't see any harm with him conducting such a test.

    But if anyone wanted to put together a 32 sample AT test and post the results on this (or any other) site, I would definitely be interested in seeing the results. They might not equate to anything more than humorous reading with procedures and results full of holes, but I certainly wouldn't criticize anyone for doing so......
     
  24. TylerGred

    TylerGred Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2005
    Posts:
    69
    Location:
    USA
    BoClean for me too.
     
  25. tazdevl

    tazdevl Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 17, 2004
    Posts:
    837
    Location:
    AZ, USA
    1) Everyone is entitled to their opinions. This is a Security Enthusiast forum which means that tests are going to get a greater degree of scrutiny that on CNet.
    2) Yes the review is free, but it's crap. Your average AT has tens of thousands of signatures that cover specific and variants of trojans, yet the reviewer only tested 16. Not what one would call a statistically significant sample. If you want crap for free, I'll be happy to eat a big salad tonight and share the results with you tomorrow. :D
    3) It has nothing to do with the fact that the test is not scientific. It has to do with the fact that for the uninitiated and people lacking expertise in this area, the results are misleading. Good example, the guy that supplied the link thinks that the results produced are credible despite the fact that most of the products in question have gone through one two or three revisions. Do you think it's OK for him to base a purchase decision on the information provided in that test?
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.