Antivirus Tests Results

[TheKiler]

Image Resized
Image Resized
[img]http://www.bbfree.com/javs/uploads/post-12-1085839985.gif' width='200' height='120' border='0' alt='click for full size view'> (http://www.bbfree.com/javs/uploads/post-12-1085839985.gif)

According to the test, norton is the best. Unfortunately, speed has conquered it's efficency. It's up to you to choose

Efficency or speed?

[angel_of_death57]

How the hell did NOD32 scan a whole harddrive in 44 seconds thats bollocks must of only scanned memory or soemthing and where is AVG in all that. I use Norton so i am happy i would rather be safe than speedy

[Snee]

Weird, I've heard people talk for a month on how much better Kaspersky's pattern files are supposed to be.

But then again NOD went through that hard-drive pretty fast, so I assume it was too small to really contain a lot of stuff, maybe this added a bit too much randomness to the test.

I have serious doubts.

Who made it?

The Symantec PR department?

[angel_of_death57]

I doubt it also do these other scanners scan inside achieves like Norton does that makes it longer to do.

I reall do doubt if i got NOD32 to scan all 100GB+ data on my 200GB hard drive would scan everything in 44seconds

Norton does mine is 45 or less minutes.

We needs specs and more info on this i do not believe yet.

[zapjb]

BS test 4 sure.

[TheKiler]

It was only 1 folder not a hard drive.

[Snee]

8000+ infected files in one folder. :blink:

Which took an hour to go through for norton, and 44 seconds for NOD 32, and only a couple of %'s difference in the detection rate.

Bloody magic.

Like I said, I have a doubt.

[TheKiler]

Here's what happened..

Each were tested with:

Zip compacted
RAR Compacted
Raw
Attributed (hidden)
Attributed (read only)
Attributed (system)
Atrtributed (all)
Zip + Rar + TAR + GZ


Then we, averaged the times that each antivirus used for each test and came up with the final results. Apparently, NOD32 easily passed the archived virus tests easily but not as efficent. Norton took much longer.

We partnered with a large virus database to obtain all of these viruses.

[Snee]

We?

[hungrylilboy]

i am on kaspersky now after going from Avast! (long term believer until i found out they dont use old viruses, just new ones) then to norton (very good but kills your system resources) and now on kas (very pleased so far, very little resources used. Just see whether it lives up to claims)

[TheKiler]

We = Triple-S

http://javs.ssxh.net
http://bbfree.com/javs

Small but eh.

[Entity101]

A far more comprehensive test with "in the wild" virusses:

http://www.virusbulletin.com/vb100/about/index.xml

Recent results:

http://www.virusbulletin.com/vb100/archive...ducts.xml?table (http://www.virusbulletin.com/vb100/archives/products.xml?table)

[Snee]

Originally posted by Entity101@11 August 2004 - 12:33
A far more comprehensive test with "in the wild" virusses:

http://www.virusbulletin.com/vb100/about/index.xml

Recent results:

http://www.virusbulletin.com/vb100/archive...ducts.xml?table (http://www.virusbulletin.com/vb100/archives/products.xml?table)
Well, if you look at the results on that one, you can chose from a few.

If you combine it with the table above, then there's only one option.




NOD32


'cos hey, 44 seconds :rolleyes:

[Mullyman]

According to the test, norton is the best.
No doubt Norton came out on top...is that not the Symantec emblem i see on the test results...christ anyone who runs a comparison test with their product is certainly going to come out on top...Norton 2004 was the worst product they ever released and they lost quite a few customers as a result...they are only trying to rehabilitate themselves with bullshit tests :devil:

[TheKiler]

What are you talking about? Symantec's symbol is a ying and yang sign that's half orange and half black. That's the triple-s logo

Triple-S is a security organization that has an antivirus of it's own under development.

[Mullyman]

My mistake..but the results are still bullshit...check the site listed below...out of the top 13 Anti-Viruses in a comparative test...Norton placed 8th.
when you get to the site click comparatives in the left column then in the new window click on online results for on demand comparative.

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

[TheKiler]

Alright man, I'm going to test it myself. I'll get back with the results.

[peat moss]

Wish it were true ,mind you I'v never had a virus . Been using norton for 4 or 5 years . ;)

[supersonic]

I've used Avast, which I switched to H+BEDV Personal E after Avast crashed my sys. completely ;) . Then I tried AVG just for the heck of it, which kind of sucked, because it didn't detect a virus that left some corrupted files that were impossible to delete without my recent format. I've tried PC-Cillen and I think it is pretty good before I switched back to H+BEDV, but workstation this time, untill the liecence has expired and switched to Nod32. I've used Norton on the other comp. and it was alright.
NOD32 is good but it consumes more resources than H+BEDV though.
I heard that Kaspersky is thier best, but I'm gonna try that after a while.
BTW: here are some tests you might be interested in

http://www.av-test.org/sites/tests.php3?lang=en
http://www.westcoastlabs.org/cm-av-list.asp?Cat_ID=1
http://www.icsalabs.com/html/communities/a...irus/labs.shtml (http://www.icsalabs.com/html/communities/antivirus/labs.shtml)
http://www.checkvir.com/index.php?CN=3.3&CIE=1
try this test, if ur AV fails then you should consider to switch ASAP to another BETTER av, because this should be detected by all Av progs.
http://www.eicar.org/anti_virus_test_file.htm