Author Topic: Kobra's AV test on 6-14-04  (Read 42620 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Kobra

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 185
  • No Text
Kobra's AV test on 6-14-04
« on: June 15, 2004, 04:37:11 PM »
Kobra's 6-14-04 AV Test.

Testbed consisted of 321 Viruses, Trojans and Worms, all for the Windows32 environment, and all reasonably new samples.  I don't have any data on whether some of these are zoo, or ITW, but they are all real threats I feel someone is likely to encounter, since I got them off the internet (and i've verified they are real as each sample must be detected by at least 4 AV's for me to consider it).  All scanners were installed on a clean system, without any traces of other anti-virus softwares - between each test the system and directories were cleaned, and the registry was sweeped.  Each AV product was treated with a double-reboot, one before, and one after installation.   Each scanner was set at its highest possible settings, and was triple checked for proper options and configuration.  Most products were the full registered version when possible, others were fully functional unrestricted trials.  All products were tested with the current version as of 6-14-04, and the latest definitions for that date.  Each product was run through the test set a minimum of 3 times to establish proper settings and reliability, the only product to exhibit some variance on this was F-Secure, which had one scan come up less than the other two without any settings changes indicating a possible stability issue.

The final standings:

1)   eXtendia AVK
2)   Kaspersky 5.0/4.5
2)   McAfee VirusScan 8.0
3)   F-Secure
4)   GData AVK
5)   RAV + Norton (2 way tie)
6)   Dr.Web
7)   CommandAV + F-Prot + BitDefender (3 Way Tie)
8)   ETrust
9)   Trend
10) Avast! Pro
11) Panda AV
12) KingSoft
13) NOD32
14) AVG Pro
15) AntiVIR
16) ClamWIN
17) UNA
18) Norman
19) Solo
20) Proland
21) Sophos
22) Hauri
23) CAT Quickheal
24) Ikarus

Heuristics seemed to play some of a roll in this test, as no AV had every virus in my test in their definitions, and products with stronger heuristics were able to hold their position towards the top of the test. Double/Multi engined products put up strong showings as well, proving to me that the redundacy method works, and I think more AV companies should considering double-engines. The strongest heurisitical AV I noticed was F-Prot/Command, picking up only 247 samples with definitions but they were able to power through 67 additional hits on "Possible Virus" indicators - very strong!  Norton with BloodHound activated had 30 Heuristical pickups, and DrWeb rounded up the pack with 20 heuristical pickups.  eXtendia AVK grabs the number one slot with double engine scanning, anything the KAV engine missed, the RAV engine picked up with great redundancy on the double engine/definition system.  McAfee actually missed only 2 samples with its definitions, but picked those 2 up as "Suspicious File", and therefore, scores nearly perfect as well.

The biggest dissapointments for me were Norman and Nod32.  Even with Advanced-Heuristics enabled, NOD32 failed to pick up a large portion of the samples.  Norman, while finding some of the toughest samples, managed to completely miss a large portion of them!  Showing that their sandbox-emulation system has great potetential, but its far from complete.

Actual test numbers were:

Total Samples/Found Samples (321 total possible) + Number Missed + Detection Percentage

1)  eXtendia AVK - 321/321 0 Missed - 100%
2)  Kaspersky 5.0 - 320/321 1 Missed - 99.70% (with Extended Database ON)
 2)  McAfee VirusScan 8.0 - 319/321 + 2 (2 found as joke programs - heuristically) - 99%
3)  F-Secure - 319/321 2 Missed - 99.37%
4)  GData AVK - 317/321 4 Missed - 98.75%
5)  RAV + Norton (2 way tie) - 315/321 6 Missed - 98.13%
6)  Dr.Web - 310/321 11 Missed - 96.57%
7)  CommandAV + F-Prot + BitDefender (3 Way Tie) - 309/321 12 Missed - 96.26%
8)  ETrust - 301/321 20 Missed - 93.76%
9)  Trend - 300/321 21 Missed - 93.45%
10) Avast! Pro - 299/321 22 Missed - 93.14%
11) Panda - 298/321 23 Missed - 92.83%
12) KingSoft - 288/321 33 Missed - 89.71%
13) NOD32 - 285/321 36 Missed  (results identical with or without advanced heuristics) - 88.78%
14) AVG Pro - 275/321 46 Missed - 85.66%
15) AntiVIR - 268/321 53 Missed - 83.48%
16) ClamWIN - 247/321 74 Missed - 76.94%
17) UNA - 222/321 99 Missed - 69.15%
18) Norman - 215/321 106 Missed - 66.97%
19) Solo - 182/321 139 Missed - 56.69%
20) Proland - 73/321 248 Missed - 22.74%
21) Sophos - 50/321 271 Missed - 15.57%
22) Hauri - 49/321 272 Missed - 15.26%
23) CAT Quickheal - 21/321 300 Missed - 6%
24) Ikarus - Crashed on first virus. - 0%

Interesting also to note, is the detection level of the US AVK version with KAV+RAV engines was higher than the German version with KAV+BitDefender engines.  Several vendors have free versions of their for purchase AV's, we didn't test the free versions, as it would serve no purpose for this test, but based on the results, none of the free versions would have been very impressive anyway. The term "Heuristics" seems like it should be taken very liberally, as some products that claim to be loaded with Heuristics scored miserably on items they clearly didn't have definitions for.  Scanning speed was not measured, as it was totally irrelevant to my testing, and on-access scanners were not tested, as it would have been too time consuming, but considering most products have similar on-access engines as on-demand, and use the same database, results most likely, would be very similar.

Cut through the hype, cut through the marketing schemes, this was a real test, with real samples, and none of these samples were provided to the antivirus software vendors in advance.  This is real world, and these are likely badguys you'll encounter, since I got them in my real encounters, and all were aquired on the internet in daily activities which anyone out there might be involved in. (Installing shareware, filesharing, surfing, etc).  Keep in mind that with ITW tests the AV vendors have full disclosure of what they will be tested on in advance, not so here, so heuristics and real detection algorithms will play a big part, as well as the depth and scope of their definition database.

« Last Edit: June 16, 2004, 12:24:59 AM by Kobra »

Offline RejZoR

  • Polymorphic Sheep
  • Serious Graphoman
  • *****
  • Posts: 9385
  • We are supersheep, resistance is futile!
    • RejZoR's Flock of Sheep
Re:Kobra's AV test on 6-14-04
« Reply #1 on: June 15, 2004, 04:52:33 PM »
Ooooooo and where is NOD32's excelent heuristic part :P
Second one is that you didn't include ligitim samples. Those would provide much higher false positive number for heuristic based antivirus programs :P
Visit my webpage Angry Sheep Blog

Offline Kobra

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 185
  • No Text
Re:Kobra's AV test on 6-14-04
« Reply #2 on: June 15, 2004, 05:02:25 PM »
These were all real virus/trojans/worms as indicated.  No false samples, no cleaned samples, and no fake samples.  So i'm not sure what you mean by "ligitim" samples?  ???

NOD32 results were completely the same whether I used norman scan, or the shell extension /AH scan.  No different.

Offline Tipton

  • Avast Evangelist
  • Advanced Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 796
  • That 70's Car
Re:Kobra's AV test on 6-14-04
« Reply #3 on: June 15, 2004, 05:03:41 PM »
So are you going to submit the threats that Avast missed, to the Avast team for consideration in their virus def updates?

Douglas
"I have lived through alot of horrible things in my life.......some of which actually happened"

Offline Kobra

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 185
  • No Text
Re:Kobra's AV test on 6-14-04
« Reply #4 on: June 15, 2004, 05:21:25 PM »
Honestly, I was *HOPING* to be surprised by a ton of things in this test, and really all I did was re-enforce many of the other testing sites on their results, mine are very close to theres, which actually shocked me, because i'm sure my samples aren't the same.  This tells me overall, I think this might be a great guage of these products.

Also, I wanted to test the multi-engined products against the others, since most testers seem to not like testing them.  Strong showings by F-Secure, and the AVK' brothers proved this idea works, and works incredibly well.  The strength of the KAV engine cannot be denied as well, since all but one of the top 5 products use the KAV engine.  :P  I forgot to add, one product I tested was called V-Catch, and turned out to be a trojan downloader and spyware application masking as a AV product.. LOL!  Thankfully it was the last product I tested, and I just reformatted, I think it downloaded 30 trojans to my system. 8-)

I did NOT test any Dos viruses, as this is completely retarded to test these in a windows based environment, it tells us nothing.  I cannot understand why Clementi at AV-Comparatives bothers to test them, all they do is skew his test results badly.  For example on his test, NOD32 scored 95.51%, but without DOS or other OS samples, NOD32 scored only 87.71%.  Which amazingly enough, is within 1% variance of *MY* results.  So i'm oblivious as to why he skews his own results for no real purpose?  Who the hell cares what a product scores on DOS?!?   ???

Offline .: Mac :.

  • Avast √úberevangelist
  • Ultra Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 5092
Re:Kobra's AV test on 6-14-04
« Reply #5 on: June 15, 2004, 05:55:08 PM »
Kobra, I admire the effort you put into these tests. But I find this
Quote
24) CAT Quickheal - 21/321 300 Missed - 6%
hard to belive! Quick Heal Has the Check-Mark Level one certification (meaning it detects all ITW viruses) and it had the VB100% award.

The Last time QuickHeal was reviewed by the VB guys on XP Pro this is what they had to say

Quote
     Summary
          o ItW Overall - 100.00%
          o ItW Overall (o/a) - 100.00%
          o ItW File - 100.00%
          o Macro - 97.54%
          o Standard - 80.67%
          o Polymorphic - 91.08%

      Quick Heal has a tendency towards better detection of more recent viruses or those which are currently in the wild. This selectivity is commonly associated with a fast throughput rate for clean files, as was indeed the case for Quick Heal. With such selectivity the chance of false positives is reduced - Quick Heal generated none. With complete detection of viruses in the ItW test set, a VB 100% is netted by CAT.
Dont get me wrong Im not saying anything bad about your tests im just saying how can CAT get all those awards and miss 300 of your viruses?
« Last Edit: June 15, 2004, 05:57:18 PM by MacLover2000 »
"People who are really serious about software should make their own hardware." - Alan Kay

Offline RejZoR

  • Polymorphic Sheep
  • Serious Graphoman
  • *****
  • Posts: 9385
  • We are supersheep, resistance is futile!
    • RejZoR's Flock of Sheep
Re:Kobra's AV test on 6-14-04
« Reply #6 on: June 15, 2004, 06:08:45 PM »
Maybe those were not exactly ITW :P Non-ITW samples are also very important.
Visit my webpage Angry Sheep Blog

Offline Kobra

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 185
  • No Text
Re:Kobra's AV test on 6-14-04
« Reply #7 on: June 15, 2004, 06:09:54 PM »
Mac, people need to understand what "ITW" means..  Of course any AV should score 100% on ITW tests, because ITW Viruses are provided to the AV companies in ADVANCE of the test!  Personally, I think ITW testing is virtually meaningless to real world users.  *ALL* the ITW testing tells me, is how well a company is at maintaining definitions for the ITW institute test sample-set.  Nothing more, nothing less.

I used to think "OMG, it scores 100% on ITW tests!" and started basing my usage of a AV off that, and let me tell you, it was a sad misconception on my part.  People see ITW and automagically assume that it means 100% from everything thats out there.  Hardly.. LOL..  I mean, look at NOD32, a product that on virtually every REAL test, scores in the 80 percentile range, but scores 100% on ITW.  Why?  Becuase they make sure they have all ITW definitions in their database, and check them extensively to avoid ITW false positives.

Now in addition, you'd be HORRIBLY mistaken to think that ITW covers Trojans, Worms, Malicious downloaders/droppers, and other things. It doesn't... ITW covers exactly what it says, VIRUSES.  You'd be further mistaken to assume ITW covers all known circulating viruses, it doesn't, it just covers what ONE organization of people considers to be the most prevelant circulating threats out there. In fact, I personally no longer use VB or Checkmark to make my AV decisions, becuase they are so limited in their scope comparative to whats actually out there.

PS: Remember, my test bed included Viruses, Trojans, Droppers and Worms.  Theres bigger threats out there than typical annoying viruses, and an AV that ignores those threats, is a poor AV in my opinion.
« Last Edit: June 15, 2004, 06:13:15 PM by Kobra »

Offline Kobra

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 185
  • No Text
Re:Kobra's AV test on 6-14-04
« Reply #8 on: June 15, 2004, 07:09:11 PM »
Side note: Someone recommended I test KAV4.5, and I did.  It missed only 1 sample, and scored 99.68%.  Considering i'd put the margin of error at 1% either way, thats a 100% product.

On recommendation from KAV5 users, i'm retesting KAV5 with the extended database download.  Which should make it 100%, or very close to it, according to the people i've talked to that deal with KAV.  KAV5 apparently defaults to the non-extended DB.

Edit: KAV5.0 now tested with extended DB option on, and it scores the same as 4.5, moving KAV5 up to second place along with KAV4.5.
« Last Edit: June 15, 2004, 07:20:05 PM by Kobra »

Offline .: Mac :.

  • Avast √úberevangelist
  • Ultra Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 5092
Re:Kobra's AV test on 6-14-04
« Reply #9 on: June 15, 2004, 10:03:55 PM »
Kobra still QuickHeal detects 80% of standard viruses. BTW did you turn on QuickHeals herustics they are not on by default
"People who are really serious about software should make their own hardware." - Alan Kay

Offline Kobra

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 185
  • No Text
Re:Kobra's AV test on 6-14-04
« Reply #10 on: June 15, 2004, 11:21:33 PM »
Just for you Mac, I retested, double checked every setting, and re-checked my testing setup.  Same results.   Check the time/date stamp on the Quickheal interface.



Personally, I put *ZERO* stock in what Virus Bulletin says.  Remember, these are the same guys that say NOD32 scores 100% in *ALL* catagories, and thats just flat out *BS* with capitol letters...

Offline Kobra

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 185
  • No Text
Re:Kobra's AV test on 6-14-04
« Reply #11 on: June 16, 2004, 12:22:27 AM »
Side note I reinstalled Avast again, went through settings MANY times, re-checked, checked again, and changed some things, and got Avast to detect 299 Viruses, up from 292.  Nothing I can do will increase this further.  I will adjust my rating of it in the review. =)  Avast! Moves ahead of Panda in my test now.  Also, someone requested a testing of Ahn's V3 Pro.. Man, it has a great interface, and tons of options, but sure missed the detections!

I'm preparing to zip up and submit these missed samples to Avast as well. Heres the updated results:

1)  eXtendia AVK - 321/321 0 Missed - 100%
2)  Kaspersky 5.0 - 320/321 1 Missed - 99.70% (with Extended Database ON)
2)  McAfee VirusScan 8.0 - 319/321 + 2 (2 found as joke programs - heuristically) - 99%
3)  F-Secure - 319/321 2 Missed - 99.37%
4)  GData AVK - 317/321 4 Missed - 98.75%
5)  RAV + Norton (2 way tie) - 315/321 6 Missed - 98.13%
6)  Dr.Web - 310/321 11 Missed - 96.57%
7)  CommandAV + F-Prot + BitDefender (3 Way Tie) - 309/321 12 Missed - 96.26%
8)  ETrust - 301/321 20 Missed - 93.76%
9)  Trend - 300/321 21 Missed - 93.45%
10) Avast! Pro - 299/321 22 Missed - 93.14%
11) Panda - 298/321 23 Missed - 92.83%
12) KingSoft - 288/321 33 Missed - 89.71%
13) NOD32 - 285/321 36 Missed  (results identical with or without advanced heuristics) - 88.78%
14) AVG Pro - 275/321 46 Missed - 85.66%
15) AntiVIR - 268/321 53 Missed - 83.48%
16) ClamWIN - 247/321 74 Missed - 76.94%
17) UNA - 222/321 99 Missed - 69.15%
18) Norman - 215/321 106 Missed - 66.97%
19) Solo - 182/321 139 Missed - 56.69%
20) V3 Pro - 109/321 212 Missed - 33.95%
21) Proland - 73/321 248 Missed - 22.74%
22) Sophos - 50/321 271 Missed - 15.57%
23) Hauri - 49/321 272 Missed - 15.26%
24) CAT Quickheal - 21/321 300 Missed - 6%
25) Ikarus - Crashed on first virus. - 0%




« Last Edit: June 16, 2004, 12:38:46 AM by Kobra »

KezzerDrix

  • Guest
Re:Kobra's AV test on 6-14-04
« Reply #12 on: June 16, 2004, 12:51:05 AM »
I didn't think it was that easy to simply go and download MAL-Ware.   :-\  

Did you find them all at one place? Can you supply a link\links?  

Should the FBI be notified?  
« Last Edit: June 16, 2004, 12:52:41 AM by KezzerDrix »

Offline Kobra

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 185
  • No Text
Re:Kobra's AV test on 6-14-04
« Reply #13 on: June 16, 2004, 12:57:56 AM »
I think the issue becomes an issue when you start "Distributing" the viruses with malicious intent.  Professionals use viruses to test all of the time, I use them to analyze and examine, and test, as I run into them.  Since I write for several technical sites, i'm well within my legal right, especially considering my samples are read-only marked.  ;D  Remember, AV developers gotta gets there samples from somewhere, and most of the time, they get them from hobbiests or users that send them in after finding them.

On a side note, i've gone through all the logs again, and have found some issues with Avast "Skipping" files I don't want it to skip.  I'll have to take these up with the Avast guys, because if thats the cast, it would dramatically effect Avasts scores.  I've checked all my settings on my end, and theres nothing I can do i've not already done.

Offline Dwarden

  • Avast Evangelist
  • Super Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 1791
  • Ideas, that's ocean without borders!
    • Bohemia Interactive
Re:Kobra's AV test on 6-14-04
« Reply #14 on: June 16, 2004, 01:51:43 AM »
i wonder about this AV

http://www.v-buster.com/

 ;D :D 8) ??? :o
https://twitter.com/FoltynD , Tech. Community, Online Services & Distribution manager of Bohemia Interactive