14 ответов в этой теме

[risl]

The Results:
(Program name, Detection Rate)

1. Avira AntiVir Personal Edition Premium – 99.43%
2. a-squared Anti-Malware – 99.37%
3. G DATA Antivirus – 99.18%
4. avast! Professional Edition – 98.95%
5. Kaspersky Antivirus – 98.64%
6. Norton Antivirus – 98.58%
7. BitDefender Antivirus – 98.49%
8. ZoneAlarm Security Suite – 98.36%
9. F-Secure Antivirus – 98.16%
10. Nod32 Antivirus – 97.83%
11. McAfee Antivirus Plus – 97.51%
12. Comodo Internet Security – 96.93%
13. AVG Antivirus – 96.65%
14. Panda Antivirus – 96.22%
15. Rising Antivirus – 95.78%
16. Sophos Antivirus – 94.86%
17. F-Prot Antivirus – 93.47%
18. Outpost Security Suite – 92.58%
19. VIPRE Antivirus + Antispyware – 92.49%
20. VirusKeeper – 91.31%
21. Spy Emergency – 73.62%
22. Dr.Web – 71.05%
23. CA Antivirus – 68.84%
24. BullGuard Internet Security - DNF
25. Malwarebytes Anti-Malware – DNF

http://ssupdater.com/modules/Forums/index.php?showtopic=5508

[v.martyanov]

Does autors manually analyze each file in collection? I said "no", so this test is useless.

[risl]

It probably doesn't mean much, but drw is usually at the bottom of the list if the test is about scanning some collections.

[v.martyanov]

It probably doesn't mean much, but drw is usually at the bottom of the list if the test is about scanning some collections.

If approx. 90% of collections is garbage, is it bad, that Dr.Web does not detect this garbage?

[risl]

If approx. 90% of collections is garbage, is it bad, that Dr.Web does not detect this garbage?

Ofcourse not!

Is there any information about the amount of garbage in these tests? For example, av-comparatives or av-test.org

[v.martyanov]

If approx. 90% of collections is garbage, is it bad, that Dr.Web does not detect this garbage?

Ofcourse not!

Is there any information about the amount of garbage in these tests? For example, av-comparatives or av-test.org

Where is not information about amount of garbage, viruses and clean files, because autors of this test DO NOT analyze files manually. So, this test is useless :-)

[risl]

Is there any tests Dr.Web concider reliable? (Or take seriously http://forum.drweb.com/public/style_emoticons/default/smile.png )

[sergeyko]

Is there any tests Dr.Web concider reliable? (Or take seriously http://forum.drweb.com/public/style_emoticons/default/smile.png )

Correspondingly. We take seriously all the public tests, only because they are public. But unfortunately what we see the more popular a test the worse it is. It can easily be explained, it's not an easy job to make a good test that would satisfy everybody, almost impossible, because modern malware and methods to fight it are very heterogeneous, it's impossible to emulate them in vitro.

The only test we trust 100% - our users and their satisfactory.

[C.S.J]

Is there any tests Dr.Web concider reliable? (Or take seriously http://forum.drweb.com/public/style_emoticons/default/smile.png )

Correspondingly. We take seriously all the public tests, only because they are public. But unfortunately what we see the more popular a test the worse it is. It can easily be explained, it's not an easy job to make a good test that would satisfy everybody, almost impossible, because modern malware and methods to fight it are very heterogeneous, it's impossible to emulate them in vitro.

The only test we trust 100% - our users and their satisfactory.

I would like to know how drweb compares in drwebs internal testing....

All avs do internal testing of the competition to see where they need to improve, so how is drwebs detection with 'real malware' in comparison to the rest?

[Eugeny Gladkih]

risl

you can see everything you want to see http://forum.drweb.com/public/style_emoticons/default/smile.png yet another quirk is here

[risl]

I posted this at wilders to see what kind of a mess happens when drw actually has performed well on a simple detection test.

[Eugeny Gladkih]

I posted this at wilders to see what kind of a mess happens when drw actually has performed well on a simple detection test.

LOL

[C.S.J]

I posted this at wilders to see what kind of a mess happens when drw actually has performed well on a simple detection test.

LOL

indeed, http://forum.drweb.com/public/style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gif

that forum always will be as it is because it brings in members......

staff members join as it gives their company real-feedback on their product, helps to improve or fix certain components, plus it makes them look good in the support department, regardless of how poor their actual support to their customers may be.

testers such as av-comparatives enjoy the limelight of their tests, and have basically become 'wilders av-comparatives tests'

companys/customers who play to get the highest figures, boast of their fantastic detection rates and av-comparatives get known as the main 'valid' testing organization because of it, its a win-win situation for both parties.

its very rare, almost un-heard of that anyone from that website challenges the tests or results or infact challenge reasons why some Ant-Viruses receive such high results, as we have found out over past years, challenging anything, even in proper context is completely prohibited at that forum.

everyone accepts everything, agrees with everything and continue with their meaningless lives

a forum that has no debates or counter-actions to 'anything' is not a forum, its marketing in its purest form.


as for ssupdater, ive tried in past months to analyze as best as i can from some of their 'downloads' (as im no expert) what is crap, and there is quite a bit of it that even i can see, a complete novice in this area of expertise. I use simple methods such as checking for added processes, visual effects and some automatic tools i own, but some were completely useless and did absolutely nothing to my machine, as far as i was aware, submitting just a 'few' of these missed samples to drweb confirmed the harmless files with the odd missed detections.

I feel, the time has come that people need to stop making up their own tests and publishing them for all to see, and time for the so-called professionals to improve their work.

i still feel strongly that drweb is a strong 92-95% av and improvements are surely still needed, but ive tested personally drwebs effects on 'massively' infected computers, by this i mean over excess of 3000+ file infections, all gathered through p2p and genuine downloads (or wrongly named downloads.... lol) including the biggest system32 file infectors such as virut.

are there still over 100 infections left, sure.... but what exactly are they and can i be sure they are harmless?...No, unless i submit everything found by other AV's/scanners to drweb for analysis. (Personally, i do not have the time for this, i have a life of my own)

but, all visible effects disappear, slowness of machine disappears, all pop ups removed, browser hijacks are gone, everything 'always' goes back to how it should be.

and only the addition of a few extra scanners completely tell me '0 infections found', which proves nothing is 100%

ive also tested many times the curing abilities of system32 files, including winlogon as its a fear we all are aware of, an unbootable machine. And everything ive tested, as found it and removed it.

there probably are viruses out there drweb misses, files and replicators drweb are not aware of, but the ones ive tried have all been successfully removed.

sure, ive had undetected files when doing some testing, but not through general usage of my machine, never.

---
chris

[Nomad Soul]

risl

you can see everything you want to see yet another quirk is here

Saw this, not for people with weak nervous system)

What do others think about this security "professionals" forum?

[gery]

risl

you can see everything you want to see yet another quirk is here

Saw this, not for people with weak nervous system)

What do you think about this security "professionals" forum?

i don't really trist such a test