Version numbers would be handy. 
This test on only based on all Virustotal results
I’m convinced that the new version of CIS will have a pretty good detection, because include heuristic. Of course the test only based on free online scanner VirusTotal that is no perfect. But that’s a fact rules of the test was the same for all anti-viruses and Comodo AV went badly. Here was testing a new threats only and hence detections wasn’t good i think.
It can only get better… 
They forgot to update some text… it still stands
"The latest one is the graph for December, 2008, presented below. "
Iam sure the new heuristic would have snapped some points…
Anyway, look how nod32 for instance relay a lot on heuristic!
I hope comodos will be in line with that!
=)
The only thing that NOD detects is : heur.pack.zlob or so… Like users know what to do then 88)
Xan
Well… 88)
Better have it detected as “something” than not detected at all! (:NRD)
this test says our sig based detection is better than NOD32.
Melih
If this is based on VirusTotal results, then how many of these detected items are false positives and so that would skew the results a bit? Like one program detects a 1,000 false positives and another is accurate all the time, so the one with 1,000 false positives would detect more than the accurate one and would look better than the accurate one, right?
That test result looks very odd to me,Avast with twice the signature detection of DrWeb and Kaspersky for example.I’d take those results with a pinch of salt personally. 88)
you see in theory any new malware is not detected (if the virii author is anything half decent)…
so testing for brand new malware… you won’t have much detection by AV vendors…
and the results will be erratic as this will depend on who gets which malware first to create sig for it.
There is a time window from the malware hitting the users to AV guys generating sigs… and during this period the detection rates could be totally random.
thanks
Melih
I would like to add that heuristics actually work on bad adapted/old sigs. Most of the times the virii are tested against all (or at least the most decent) products before they’re released, so rendering heuristics useless…
Xan
I’m curious what version was used in the comparison.
Seeing how CAVS is still a pretty new antivirus, its score is pretty good in my opinion. Hell it even scored better than a couple of AVs on there that have been researched for years, including NOD32 a AV that I hear so many good things about.
Anyway… I usually pay no attention to these types of statistics. I’ve had barely any problems with CIS on my machines than other products, where I almost always encounter one.