http://www.av-comparatives.org/
Retrospective/ProActive Test, May 2005, documentation is available.
it’s suprising all products except NOD32 are terrific detection rate …
hell even KAV with theirs fanatic updating scheme and any virus, trojan, malware collection spree …
@dwarden: please read the docuemnts and faqs to understand how to interprete the results of a retrospective test. i think you did not fully understood what a retrospective test is 
yes i read the methology document … and i said it suprise me that KAV was worse than NOD32 … is that bad to be suprised?
i wonder if You read it whole …
Hehe, IBK is the one who performed the test 
;D
Basically it would be the easiest way to perform retrospective test if all AVs would support separate disabling of signatures and heuristics.
But since only few Avs support this,you have to make a workaround so everyone has the same chance. And this workaround are outdated virus definitions.
;D
i feel owned 
anyway keep testing guys
Look to the other side of this. As I’ve noticed, avast again beats AVG! ;D I’ll say by hearth, I’m not very interested on how someone tests this av. I see by myself, how every program works on my PC, and I’m glad to stay with avast. That’s it. 8)
This test just shows how important it is to update your av regulary(avast updates are very frequent in the last time ;D )
Anti-Virus comparative of August 2005 is now released on http://www.av-comparatives.org
avast! scored pretty good,although it could be better. Anyway it still kicked Sophos,AVG and came very very close to Trend Micro.
I hope avast starts to beat antivir!
I don’t want avast! beat any other antivirus… I understand that competition make all the products better and it’s very good for everybody.
I don’t want to see other freewares staying behind. I hope AntiVir, AVG, ClamWin, BitDefender… better and better.
I can’t feel the same for the only buy to use applications
I just want avast! be the best ;D
Dear folks!
Be aware of the limited reliability of these tests. Read carefully what they are actually testing.
I posted in General Topics “Antivirus Comparison by a savvy” on August 22…
Also read this:
http://www.av-comparatives.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=173
Their administrator said: “The difference is due to the fact that F-Secure released the defs of KAV a bit later than KAV” : : :
Nothing wrong with that, that is a fact. You can ask F-Secure if you do not believe me, they got in past also other detailed results, which would back up the statement. Before you start talking bad about tests, please inform yourself better and how tests were performed etc. Of course, you are free to prefer other tests if you do not like the work of av-comparatives.
You may be also interested in reading this: ftp://ftp.kaspersky.fr/utils/private/ESAC/TwoScanEngines.pdf
I do know that several AV products use the same defs and/or engine. Apparently you too. Why then compare them ?
I do not prefer any AV test, because the methods used are not as reliable as the testers apparently claim, sothat not too savvy computers users believe them !
AV-Comparatives does supply some detailed information about their tests on their website, implying that the results should be interpretated with caution. Indeed, the latest major attack on US corporate computer networks was not detected by the AV scanners performing so brilliantly in your tests. We need AV scanners to protect us, not to perform so well in highly specific tests.
Is there any statistical weight analysis applied ? No.
What kind of malware will likely be encountered ? There is huge difference here between home users and corporate networks ! Do the tests take this into account ? No.
Moreover, there are a lot of other issues to consider, before you can decide on a specific brand of AV.
I am indeed not happy at all with those AV tests, because the ordinary computer users are more or less fooled by them.
The tests that are atm provided by av-comparatives are on-demand tests, one time as complete on-demand test against all malware and one time a retrospective test. of course those are only 2 aspects. if you need the other data like you said (e.g. outbreak response tests, itw tests only, etc.), there are a lot of other testing sites and reviews which provide them, a list of links is also included on the website. more aspects of av will be included in the av-comparatives tests next year and in the following years.
Ok, I understand you are improving your testing methods.
However, do you know the malcreants are using anti-AV tests to ascertain the viruses they made (with one of the more than 200 viruskits) will not be detected ?
Of course, such undetectable viruses will be in the wild. Not those of your testfiles ! Which, of course, also applies to other test sites.
This is the main problem today.
About 90 % of all computers is infected and the owners are not aware of it. In spite of all the security software used here, this malware indirectly only shows up by employing methods that are not useful for home users. Sooner or later this crap is detected, but not on the fly. Unless you are tolerating a lot of false positives (like PE compressed and encrypted files that might be legit install/uninstall files).
The approach in this Project is very interesting: eweek.com
“The monkey launches a browser instance for each suspect URL and waits for a few minutes. The monkey is not set up to click on any dialog box to permit installation of any software; consequently, any executable files that get created outside the browser’s temporary folder are detected by the [data recorder] and signal an exploit,” Wang (Microsoft) said.
Microsoft Unwraps HoneyMonkey Detection Project