the testing of antivirus products for the treatment of active infections III

http://www.anti-malware-test.com/?q=node/55

The following antivirus products were tested:

Avast! Professional Edition 4.8.1229
AVG Anti-Virus & Anti-Spyware 8.0.0.2
Avira AntiVir PE Premium 8.1.0.367
BitDefender Antivirus 2009 (12.0.10.1)
Dr.Web Anti-Virus 4.44.5.8080
Eset NOD32 Antivirus 3.0.669.0
F-Secure Anti-Virus 2009
Kaspersky Anti-Virus 2009 (8.0.0.357)
McAfee VirusScan 2008 (12.1.110)
Outpost Antivirus Pro 6.5.2358.316.0607
Panda Antivirus 2009
Sophos Antivirus 7.3.4
Norton AntiVirus 2009
Trend Micro Antivirus plus Antispyware 2008 (16.10.1182)
VBA32 Antivirus 3.12.8.6

Avast! Professional Edition 4.8 - Gold Malware Treatment Award

Well, it’s not bad 12/15… But, remember, it’s a test, the malware set tested was also chose and could not reflect the reality outside. Dr. Web get the 1st position.

Affirmative on what Tech said. And Dr. Web has no free version, though their paid version is priced competitively.

Both Dr. Web and Kaspersky have free stand-alone scan-only versions which install and run without inserting themselves much at all into your system’s environment:
http://www.freedrweb.com/cureit/
http://avptool.virusinfo.info/en/
As they’re always updated quite frequently, you download and run as needed.

Though I run avast! Pro full time, I do these every two to three weeks. Just to be sure.

The results only tell us which products are best at “recovery” and im sure some (eset perhaps) will argue that their protection is focused on catching the malware at or during install rather than after it hits the fan.

thanks for the link

Well they can argue with that but being realistic that is just a very bad excuse. Nothing catches everything and sometimes you also have to do the dirty work. That also includes ESET with its “uber advacned” heuristics…