antivirus results are in!

General Topics
1

Hi malware fighters,

Just received this link, and read the results given here:

http://tech.cybernetnews.com/2007/06/04/new-retrospective-antivirus-results-are-in/
Comments?

polonus

2
I’m still sticking with Avast! which also appears to have done well on the test. It is a free anti-virus application and is one that performs decent on both the heuristic testing and the "known viruses" testing

Now that’s what I’m talking about ;D

3

Although I am very, very disappointed with AVG. Being in this category that it is, it’s so humiliating for AVG. After this test I wonder what is the real difference between AVG and Notepad!!

4
I’m still sticking with Avast! which also appears to have done well on the test. It is a free anti-virus application and is one that performs decent on both the heuristic testing and the "known viruses" testing. The thought of purchasing a NOD32 license has never looked so appetizing though
nice quote as Zagor mentioned above ;)
Just received this link
from whom i wonder ::)
It is another sad day for the Microsoft OneCare Antivirus program as news begins to trickle in of it placing 14th out of the 17 programs that were tested.
no wonder it's selling dirt cheap! it doesn't do much :P
AVG (8%) Note: produced too many false positives and didn’t catch many viruses.
what happened AVG :-X
5

What also happened to BitDefender? This was excellent program. I guess this is the common life of anti-virus apps, sometimes they suck, sometimes they don’t.

6

There is a couple of topics on the av-comparatives May Retrospective Tests, this is just one of them, http://forum.avast.com/index.php?topic=28651.0, the retrospective test always throws up anomalies. The results are often a opposite ends of the spectrum to the regular on-demand scan, so I feel the retrospective test shouldn’t be viewed in isolation but in combination with the on-demand test.

They used a type of testing called Retrospective which is just about the best type of testing available for ranking antivirus software.

This to me is possibly the most stupid statement I have come across in a very long time. When people are encouraged to keep their AV up to date or the AV has an auto update function, av-comparatives do a test where the signature files are three months old. This is supposedly to test heuristic/proactive detections and many of the AVs tested don’t have full blown heuristics detections so are going to fare poorly, avast has done surprisingly well considering.

To my mind there is little worth in this test for anyone who keeps their AV up to date and I wouldn’t say “is just about the best type of testing available for ranking antivirus software” as cybernetnews does.

7

Hi malware fighters,

But I think that test results have not much to do with the real life theatre.
Everyone here, exept for using avast as his or her resident scanner, has his or her special scanning formula to have the widest anti-virus scope to keep the vulnerability window as tightly shut as possible.

polonus

P.S. The link was provided by drhayden1, for which we thank this interesting thread.

D.

8
But I think that test results have not much to do with the real life theatre. Everyone here, exept for using avast as his or her resident scanner, has his or her special scanning formula to have the widest anti-virus scope to keep the vulnerability window as tightly shut as possible.
could you re-word that-i'm having trouble in my older years ;D understanding that ???
P.S. The link was provided by drhayden1, for which we thank this interesting thread.
how kind you are to mention that ;) click on cats ::)
9

I believe polonus is mirroring my comments in that it isn’t a realistic test for a well out of date signature file. Added to that those that frequent these forums are also likely to be using a multi-application approach to security, so an individual application test is likely to be lower than the combined detections of multi-application security.