latest detection rate URL for AV programs? best SECOND malware engine, stand-alone is?

Do you have a question? Post it now! No Registration Necessary.  Now with pictures!

Threaded View
First question:  I get these URLs off the net, and I have one from PC
Magazine's review from last year and another older one, that ranks how
various AV programs detect various malware.  Generally the industry
paid-for versions that are #1 are Norton and Kaspersky (though
Kaspersky only detected 29%% of keyloggers and 67% of Rootkits, which
was worse than the base line 'free' version of MSFT Security
Essentials, at 50% and 89% respectively, and Norton at 86% and 89%).
Free versions that are right up there include AVG Anti-Virus Free
2011, Ad-Aware Free Internet Security 9.0, F-Secure, Double Anti-Spy
Professional, Comodo (about the same as Microsoft Security Essentials
actually, which is 'average').  I could not find Avast! or Avira in
this graph I'm looking at now but in another URL that I dont' have
before me it was right up there at least average or slightly above
average, which is fine with me.

First question for the group:  the latest URL for AV comparisons and
detection rates is where?  If it's handy.  Like I said I got this URL
from PC Mag and just copied and pasted the conclusions.

Second question:  what is a good SECOND malware engine that will not
interfere with your TSR first malware engine?  I've heard Malwarebytes
anti-malware is good, but the one time I used it, a week ago,when I
had a known virus, it failed to detect the virus (which Kaspersky's
Live CD found).  I am interested in a free version--is Ad-Aware Free
any good?  Is it good as a second program or will it clash with what I
am using now (on various machines I have Comodo, Avast!, Avira and
Microsoft Security Essentials, all running Windows 7).

RL

Re: latest detection rate URL for AV programs? best SECOND malware engine, stand-alone is?

RayLopez99 wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it

Yeah, it has become difficult to sort the best detection rates now that
all types of malware are included in the test set. It was much easier to
get clearer results when anti*virus* programs were tested against
*viruses* and anything else was just gravy. Now the gravy has become the
most prevalent threat and weak anti*virus* programs can shine like diamonds.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Something like this:

http://www.av-comparatives.org /

There used to be some other very respectable tests back when it was for
viruses only, don't know about now though.
Quoted text here. Click to load it

TSR is antiquated, but I know what you mean.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

MBAM isn't designed specifically for viruses, but it very good at doing
what it *is* designed for - and will catch *some* viruses too. It is
great when coupled with a program designed to catch viruses very well
and gravy too.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Can't help you there, but I know that SUPERAntiSpyware and MBAM are very
good and play well with anti*virus* programs.

Re: latest detection rate URL for AV programs? best SECOND malware engine, stand-alone is?


Quoted text here. Click to load it

LOL I see who you replied to.

What he doesn't realize is that my Muti-AV Scaing Tool fits the query of "what
is a good
SECOND malware engine that will not interfere with your TSR first malware
engine?"

It's too bloody bad he considered it "vanity ware" in the past.  < ROFLOL >


--
Dave
Multi-AV Scanning Tool - http://multi-av.thespykiller.co.uk
http://www.pctipp.ch/downloads/dl/35905.asp



Re: latest detection rate URL for AV programs? best SECOND malware engine, stand-alone is?

David H. Lipman wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it

I think he has gotten over that. :o)

I think he wants a "real time" antimalware to supplement his "real time"
antivirus, not an "on demand" antivirus/antimalware to supplement.

IOW he realizes that his "on-access" antivirus/antimalware program may
be interfered with if he uses another antimalware that competes for the
same resources and wants something that is better at *malware* than the
AV program he has is.

He may be starting to realize at least one of the reasons AV and AM need
to be treated differently. AM mostly depends on the quickness of the
definitions being made available, while AV needs to take a longer time
in the development of a signature that covers all forms of each distinct
virus or perhaps even run the virus in an emulated environment to expose
the virus body to be searched.

Anyway, you would be more familiar with the brands of antimalware
programs he mentioned than I would be. I only recently found out that
Ad-Aware, and Comodo did viruses at all.




Re: latest detection rate URL for AV programs? best SECOND malware engine, stand-alone is?

Quoted text here. Click to load it


OK thanks, bookmarked.

Quoted text here. Click to load it


What do they say now, young fella?

Quoted text here. Click to load it

I see.  Perhaps, given this insight, I'll give MBAM another chance.
Thanks.

RL

Re: latest detection rate URL for AV programs? best SECOND malware engine, stand-alone is?

RayLopez99 wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terminate_and_Stay_Resident

[...]

Re: latest detection rate URL for AV programs? best SECOND malware engine, stand-alone is?

Quoted text here. Click to load it


I noticed that Norton is not on the list, and F-Secure and Symantec do
well on the tests, with some minor fluctuations.  Googling Symantec I
find that they make Norton!

On the fluctuations:  could it be that the same PC running the same
tests will sometimes accidentally skip (or not completely check) an
infected file?  Perhaps because it was under load and doing so much
multitasking?  Curious as to why there are fluctuations month to month
in the score.

RL

Re: latest detection rate URL for AV programs? best SECOND malware engine, stand-alone is?

RayLopez99 wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it

Methodology:

http://www.av-comparatives.org/images/stories/test/docs/methodology.pdf

Also you may want to note in the FAQ portion of the above document

11) Can you name me six other established testing institutions (apart
AV-Comparatives) that you consider noteworthy.



Re: latest detection rate URL for AV programs? best SECOND malware engine, stand-alone is?

Quoted text here. Click to load it


I also found this independent testing site: http://www.av-test.org /

I am leaning towards buying F-Secure.  Coincidentally their website
says they are 'officially' rated #1 (I only found this out after
coming to the same conclusion).  They also seem to have jacked up
their price towards the high end of $60 for three pcs per year.  But
they are noticeably better than the freeware AV programs I'm using
now, but not by a landslide.

RL

Site Timeline