New virus.gr comparative test of AVs

Check this out.

http://www.virus.gr/portal/en/content/2008-06%2C-1-21-june

Comodo was rank 40 and Antivir Premium was rank 7! :o I need to get G Data now. :o

G-Data has two antivirus engine Combined (Kaspersky & Avast). If you have a very fast computer, go for it. Tried it & it lag my computer more than Norton. (:SAD)

F-Secure #2… Interesting…

NOD32… #14… Even more interesting.

Josh

Ashampoo - very intresting ;D (Almost as good as Antivir Premium ? :o)

Stick to your current AV’s people ! :slight_smile: No need for G-DATA or TrustPort :-X

NOD32 runs great on my system and I will keep it despite these results. I tried Avira again and my pc boots up slower. Borowsing is slower. Also Sandboxie loads with errors. Maybe once the bugs are worked out of KAV I will try it again.

Slower than Norton? :o I didn’t think anything could be slower than that. However, I can see the advantages to having two engines. That company mainly sells enterprise software which needs to be super secured since most users treat their work PC worse than their home one since it’s not theirs. :stuck_out_tongue: Though, most people don’t treat their home PC well and DL stuff that puts bad stuff on their PC. :frowning: Poor PCs. Let’s form the “Rescue PC” group that rescues PCs from abusive owners like there is a Animal Rescue group. ;D hehe. But seriously, I can understand it.

On a side note, could you imagine a Anti-Virus program that integrated all engines in it, something like virustotal.com but one big piece of software? :smiley: That would be fun. I wonder if it would get 99.99999% on this new test. 88)

I think I will wait for CAVS3. I hope it gets tested and ranked on that site. I would love to see how it performs against others.

Thanks. that was an interesting read.

I had some difficulties understanding what VS2000 meant in order to have and idea about sample selection.

It turned out it was an utility for malware researchers but I guess providing additional infos will break the Forum policy.

The scores provided on virus.gr are different from May 08 Av comparatives Proactive Test run only on 11.509 new samples.

This made me wonder how difficult would be to estimate how much an AV can defend an user against recent threats.
what I would like to know, but I’m unable to, is how much time it take for a partcular brand to detect new wild types samples.

Being a previous avast user I found out few cases avast took over than two months to detect new samples (using default settings).

Average time for some antivirus makers to respond to a new malware sample :

G-DATA - 19 minutes
Kaspersky Lab - 55 minutes
BitDefender - 1 hour 57 minutes
F-Secure - 2 hours 33 minutes
Avira - 2 hours 55 minutes
Panda - 5 hours 58 minutes
Norton - 7 hours 11 minutes
McAfee - 9 hours 19 minutes

I don’t know about the others :frowning:

I guess this refer to the times to wait for a reply if you send them a sample.
Avast was fast too but I waited months before sending those samples :stuck_out_tongue:

My first reaction was to save those samples and wait to see how much time it got to have them detected.
It took me time to realize that it was counterproductive.

it’s like a chicken-egg birth dilemma.

Seriously, every passing day I lose what little faith I could have left in the relevance of this kind of tests. According to av-comparatives.org, Kaspersky is ■■■■ and there were many other strange results. In short if you compare that to this you must infer that at least one of the comparatives has to be meaningless. I bet that if you add other recent comparatives in the ecuation the thing gets worse.

(:SAD) ???

Thats why antivirus makers (and of course us at first) want a ONE independent testing organization to test their products. Not a million like we have now :slight_smile:
Actually there are meetings regarding this question :slight_smile: So maybe we will have the above mentioned test-lab in a near future :slight_smile:

I would like to add also one joint sample gathering organization ;D
There will be obviously difference in AV engines but having all brands excange new samples will improve the current situaltion a lot and spare us the need to use online multi AV scan sites :slight_smile:

Do you mean a site of something like the page started by Comodo to test Firewalls, but for AVs instead?

Yes. Something like that :slight_smile: Of course it’s hard to make one, that pleases every antivirus developer and it’s hard to make sure that all the results are objective :slight_smile:

I see Kaspersky is always at the top, not first but very near, I like it because there is no big oscillation, also should be noted that after “explorer” fiasco, Kaspersky deliver base updates with one day delay…

P.S. If someone wanna to see real and newest May 08 Av comparatives Proactive Test (for Kaspersky 2009)

click here (PDF) → http://www.av-comparatives.org/seiten/ergebnisse/KIS8.pdf

Kaspersky according to this test is a winner, because it uses only one antivirus engine :slight_smile: (G-DATA, F-Secure and TrustPort uses multiple engines and Kaspersky is one of the main ones in their products :))

Yes, engine is the winner, not app. itself…

I do not consider G-DATA, F-Secure and TrustPort as the actuall antivirus makers. They just glued a couple or more antivirus engines they did not make :slight_smile:
Whell F-Secure made a few engines, but I would respect them much more if they develop an antivirus which uses only their own engine(s) :slight_smile:

I do not agree with you, I tried F-secure and that is not simple “gluing”, they “wrapped” Kaspersky engine inside very powerful package which included (among other things) good behavior defense, their own rootkit analyzer/scanner and so on…