And The Best Antivirus Is… (According to www.virus.gr)

[cyfer]

Quite interesting. Why is AOL virus shield right next to Kaspersky? This is surprising.

The test was made on 15-25 August 2006, using Windows XP Professional SP1 on a P4 2800 Mhz, 512MB DDRAM.

All programs tested had the latest versions, upgrades and updates and they were tested using their full scanning capabilities e.g. heuristics, full scan etc. The default settings of each program were not used, in order for each program to achieve its maximum detection rate. Because of this, there is a possibility for the tested programs to detect a few false positives.

1. Kaspersky version 6.0.0.303 - 99.62%

2. Active Virus Shield by AOL version 6.0.0.299 - 99.62%

3. F-Secure 2006 version 6.12.90 - 96.86%

4. BitDefender Professional version 9 - 96.63%

5. CyberScrub version 1.0 - 95.98%

6. eScan version 8.0.671.1 - 95.82%

7. BitDefender freeware version 8.0.202 - 95.57%

8. BullGuard version 6.1 - 95.57%

9. AntiVir Premium version 7.01.01.02 - 95.45%

10. Nod32 version 2.51.30 - 95.14%

11. AntiVir Classic version 7.01.01.02 - 94.26%

12. ViruScape 2006 version 1.02.0935.0137 - 93.87%

13. McAfee version 10.0.27 - 93.03%

14. McAfee Enterprise version 8.0.0 - 91.76%

15. F-Prot version 6.0.4.3 beta - 87.88%

16. Avast Professional version 4.7.871 - 87.46%

17. Avast freeware version 4.7.871 - 87.46%

18. Dr. Web version 4.33.2 - 86.03%

19. Norman version 5.90.23 - 85.65%

20. F-Prot version 3.16f - 85.14%

21. ArcaVir 2006 - 83.44%

22. Norton Professional 2006 - 83.18%

23. AVG Professional version 7.1.405 - 82.82%

24. AVG freeware version 7.1.405 - 82.82%

25. Panda 2007 version 2.00.01 - 82.23%

26. Virus Chaser version 5.0a - 81.47%

27. PC-Cillin 2006 version 14.10.1051 - 80.90%

28. VBA32 version 3.11.0 - 79.12%

29. ViRobot Expert version 4.0 - 76.22%

30. UNA version 1.83 - 75.44%

31. Rising AV version 18.41.30 - 73.60%

32. Sophos Sweep version 6.0.2 - 69.48%

33. Ikarus version 5.19 - 63.22%

34. Antiy Ghostbusters version 5.1.3 - 61.55%

35. Digital Patrol version 5.00.12 - 54.29%

36. Vexira 2006 version 5.002.45 - 52.66%

37. V3Pro 2004 version 6.1.1.2.640 - 52.38%

38. Ewido Premium version 4.0.0.172 - 51.27%

39. Ewido freeware version 4.0.0.172 - 51.27%

40. ClamWin version 0.88.4 - 51.23%

41. E-Trust version 7.2.0.0 - 50.36%

42. ZoneAlarm with VET Antivirus version 6.5.722.000 - 44.65%

43. A Squared Anti-Malware version 2.0 - 43.28%

44. A Squared Free version 2.0 - 43.28%

45. Zondex Guard version 5.4.2 - 41.73%

46. Comodo version 1.0.0.4 - 41.02%

47. Solo 4.0 version 3.1.0 - 40.83%

48. Protector Plus version 7.2.H03 - 37.04%

49. Quick Heal version 8.00 - 33.66%

50. PC Door Guard version 4.2.0.35- 24.13%

51. AntiTrojan Shield version 2.1.0.14 - 24.11%

52. VirIT version 6.1.9 - 21.39%

53. Trojan Hunter version 4.2.924 - 13.44%

54. Trojan Remover version 6.5.1 - 8.00%

55. Tauscan version 1.70.1414 - 7.70%

56. The Cleaner version 4.2.4319 - 6.03%

57. Hacker Eliminator version 1.2 - 1.70%

58. Abacre version 1.4 - 0.00%

For more infomation about this test visit: http://www.virus.gr/english/fullxml/default.asp?id=82

[bob3160]

The test was made on 15-25 August 2006, using Windows XP Professional SP1

Now why would they use an outdated operating system   Why SP1 and not SP2

[cyfer]

I just noticed that Active Virus Shield by AOL is powered by Kaspersky.

[XMAS]

What's the sense to test both versions of avast! (Home and Pro), everyone knows that both versions has the same scanning capabilities (same detection rates) 

[cyfer]

What's the sense to test both versions of avast! (Home and Pro), everyone knows that both versions has the same scanning capabilities (same detection rates)  Huh

I guess they don't know how avast! company works.

[igor]

This "test" is flawed all along, so those few duplicit entries are really insignificant.

[drhayden1]

hi all...would it make any difference on the results using SP2
why SP1 in the first place

[cyfer]

We/You could send them an email at general@virus.gr

[cyfer]

I know I don't like to see avast! not in the 10 top either. But why is it not, is this test rigged? 

[TazUk]

Detecting viruses is only part of what an antivirus program does, the other part is dealing with them when they are discovered and this is where I think Avast scores over other programs.

[.: Mac :.]

Igor can you tell how this test is flawed?

[igor]

Completely
If nothing else, the selection of samples is wrong. It isn't an easy thing to do; you can't take a few antivirus programs and call anything detected by at least one of them a virus. This way:
1. The programs used for such selections get an immediate advantage
2. You are ignoring the viruses that the other A/V programs detect and the selected groups doesn't
3. Any false positive (or corrupted sample), detected by one of the selected A/Vs, is immediatelly counted as a loss for the other ones. So, the testbed may actually be a big folder of garbage here.

You can't get meaningful results from flawed samples...

[.: Mac :.]

Oh I see. Thanks Igor

[cyfer]

Completely 
If nothing else, the selection of samples is wrong. It isn't an easy thing to do; you can't take a few antivirus programs and call anything detected by at least one of them a virus. This way:
1. The programs used for such selections get an immediate advantage
2. You are ignoring the viruses that the other A/V programs detect and the selected groups doesn't
3. Any false positive (or corrupted sample), detected by one of the selected A/Vs, is immediatelly counted as a loss for the other ones. So, the testbed may actually be a big folder of garbage here.

You can't get meaningful results from flawed samples...

That is interesting. 

[Lisandro]

Completely
If nothing else, the selection of samples is wrong. It isn't an easy thing to do; you can't take a few antivirus programs and call anything detected by at least one of them a virus. This way:
1. The programs used for such selections get an immediate advantage
2. You are ignoring the viruses that the other A/V programs detect and the selected groups doesn't
3. Any false positive (or corrupted sample), detected by one of the selected A/Vs, is immediatelly counted as a loss for the other ones. So, the testbed may actually be a big folder of garbage here.

You can't get meaningful results from flawed samples...

Igor, this is ridiculous, I mean... people are laughing at the user, they must be joking with us that can't 'see' the wrong methodology as we're not virus analyst experts.
As we have a rogue page for antispywares, we must have a rogue page for antivirus tests.