Reliable Antivirus Comparison?

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

Threaded View
Hi. Can anyone point me to easily accessible, free to read, reliable
antivirus comparison report online?


Re: Reliable Antivirus Comparison?

nashraf.nasa@gmail.com wrote:

Quoted text here. Click to load it

These are the only two that are currently worth anything. Everything
else is based on a review, poll, opinion, or ad-supported skew of the
facts.

AV-Test (Andreas Marx - Germany)
   http://www.av-test.org /

AV-Comparatives (Andreas Clementi - Austria)
   http://www.av-comparatives.org /

Food for thought (Eugene Kaspersky)
   http://www.viruslist.com/en/analysis?pubid=174405517

Note that VirusBulletin has just released the results of their latest
testing. Also note the comments by EK in the above link about VB.
While the awards are nice, they really don't mean that much from a
methodological standpoint.

Microsoft's own antivirus fails to secure Vista

http://news.com.com/Microsofts+own+antivirus+fails+to+secure+Vista/2100-7355_3-6156733.html?tag=nefd.pulse
Short Version: http://tinyurl.com/25c45c

Ron :)

Re: Reliable Antivirus Comparison?

Thanks for the info.


Re: Reliable Antivirus Comparison?


Quoted text here. Click to load it

How do you rate VirusBulletin ?
http://www.virusbtn.com/vb100/archive/results?display=summary

Thanks




Re: Reliable Antivirus Comparison?

Alt Beer wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it

well, i'd rate it as *not free* (one of the OP's criteria was free to
read)... only the summary of the vb100 results (which is limited to
detection of viruses on the wildlist) are available for free, the actual
report is published in the virus bulletin which has a significant cost
attached...

--
"it's not the right time to be sober
now the idiots have taken over
spreading like a social cancer,
is there an answer?"

Re: Reliable Antivirus Comparison?

Alt Beer wrote:

Quoted text here. Click to load it

With respect to the company, I agree with Kurt. They seem to be a
little too preoccupied with selling subscriptions. I would not put
them in the same category as the PC magazines, though. I see no reason
to believe that they skew their testing and test results dependent
upon advertising revenue.

With respect to VB's testing, EK said this in his November 2005 article.

Food for thought (Eugene Kaspersky)
   http://www.viruslist.com/en/analysis?pubid=174405517

Quote: "It's also worth mentioning the tests conducted by
VirusBulletin (an industry publication) - I am sure that if I didn't
include this, readers would ask why the tests and the resulting VB100%
award hadn't been mentioned. Sadly, these tests are far from perfect.
The test standards were developed in the mid-1990s and have barely
changed since then. Antivirus products are tested using a collection
of files infected by ITW viruses. The award is given on the basis of
the test results. However, the ITW collection only contains between
two to three thousand files - fewer malicious programs than appear in
the wild in the space of a single month. Therefore, a VB100% award
doesn't necessarily mean that a product really provides protection
against all types of malware. It simply means that the product copes
well with VirusBulletin's ITW collection, nothing more."

I have seen nothing anywhere to indicate that any of this has changed.
But, as I have pointed out in the past, KL has marketing bozos, too. LOL.

  http://www.kaspersky.com/news?id=207575489

Ron :)

Re: Reliable Antivirus Comparison?

Ron Lopshire wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it

to the best of my knowledge they don't have advertising revenue (at
least i didn't notice any ads in the past issues they've made available
online, but i haven't gone through all of them so who knows)... i think
that's part of why the subscription price is so high...

Quoted text here. Click to load it

this seems a little misleading, but then considering some of the things
that have been chalked up to english not being kaspersky's native tongue
in the past i suppose i can understand it...

the basic disconnect here is that he's comparing the wildlist to the set
of malicious programs seen in the wild... the wildlist doesn't deal with
all types of malicious programs, it's more or less specific to viruses
(yes, i know there's a special section for non-viral malware, but that
appears to be more of an afterthought) and as we know non-viral malware
come into fashion big time... as such, it's the relevance of wildlist
testing and the wildlist itself that is being called into question...

as much as i agree that the wildlist's narrow scope is making it
increasingly irrelevant, there's really nothing comparable for the wider
field of all malware in terms of scientific rigor...

--
"it's not the right time to be sober
now the idiots have taken over
spreading like a social cancer,
is there an answer?"

Re: Reliable Antivirus Comparison?

If I am not mistaken, Trend Micro's Pc Cillin is not included in AV-
Comparative report (I have seen the August and November 2006 report)
and www.virustotalscan as well. Why would that be?


Site Timeline