Neo122007
Auto-translated
A well-known antivirus expert, Andreas Marx, from the AV-Test.org laboratory, conducted tests of antivirus products for the upcoming year. Among the products relevant to Russian consumers, Norton Internet Security and Kaspersky Internet Security performed the best, while "Doctor Web" and VirusBuster Professional, which uses the antivirus engine of Outpost Pro from the St. Petersburg-based company Agnitum, were among the worst.
Read also:
The "Doctor Web" company announced the release of an updated version of the Dr.Web antivirus for Windows Mobile 4.44.1. As a reminder, Dr.Web for Windows Mobile was released in December 2007. The antivirus is characterized by its high reliability...
Dr.Web for Windows Mobile updated to version 4.44.1
The Anti-Malware.ru portal summarized the results of the first test of antivirus products for performance and system resource consumption. The fastest antiviruses (Platinum Award) were Panda Antivirus 2008, Avira Antivir Premium 8.1.00.331, and Sophos...
The fastest antiviruses have been identified
The "Interсвязь" company, which provides Internet access services in the city of Chelyabinsk, has implemented the Dr.Web AV-Desk service. Starting September 15, all subscribers of the "Interсвязь" Group of Companies will be able to protect their computers with antivirus software...
"Interсвязь" launches Dr.Web AV-Desk
The test laboratory of Andreas Marx, AV-Test.org, summarized the results of an independent test of 33 antivirus products for "2009". In addition to the traditional subject of analysis – the level of detection of malicious software – the German testers studied the quality of proactive protection of new antiviruses, and also introduced an additional criterion – the frequency of updates of databases and program components. Among the leaders of the tests (from those vendors that are relevant to the Russian consumer) is the new generation of Norton Internet Security, which was slightly behind Kaspersky Internet Security 2009.
On the laboratory computers, the tested antiviruses scanned a collection of 1.1 million fresh samples of malicious software that appeared in the "wild" in the last 3 months. In addition, 95,000 units of spyware were involved in the test. To check the quality of detection, 2.5 million "clean" files were used – components of the top 100 software, downloaded from the Internet. The tested antivirus products had to recognize them as safe. In addition to these tests, the scanners were also tested for the level of retrospective detection: about 65,000 viruses were offered for scanning by antiviruses with outdated signature databases.
The general summary of the study, which was expressed by Andreas Marx, boils down to the fact that the new versions of the products catch more viruses without any serious deterioration in performance: "Compared to the 2008 generation, the new products (even in beta versions) work faster and better. It seems that the manufacturers have done serious work and, instead of simply adding new options, they have paid attention to how the antivirus behaves in the system." Marx also noted separately that the vast majority of 2009 products use the capabilities of online scanning of malicious software, which will increase the quality of detection and, accordingly, user protection.
General results of the AV-Test.org test. Products are arranged in alphabetical order
Notes:
[*1] AVK 2008 uses the antivirus engines of Avast! and "Kaspersky"
[*2] AVK 2009 uses the antivirus engines of Avast! and BitDefender
[*3] WebWasher uses the Avira engine and a heuristic engine of its own development
[*4] The free (for personal use) edition does not include recognition of advertising and spyware, so the result should be "--"
In the results of the test, a system of conditional designations-assessments was used. For example, an antivirus product that found more than 98% of virus samples, never made a mistake when detecting clean files, and showed a signature update time of less than 2 hours in response to a new threat, received an assessment of "++". A product with 95% detection, 1-2 false positives, and a response time of up to 4 hours received a "+". 0 was given to an antivirus that caught 90% of viruses, made 3-4 mistakes, and showed a response time of 4-6 hours. "-" was given to products that showed a detection rate of slightly more than 85%, 5-6 errors, and a 6-8 hour response to a threat. "--" is for antiviruses that did not achieve these results.
One of the best antiviruses in all positions was Norton Internet Security 2009 beta, which showed high results in detecting viruses (98.7%) and spyware and advertising programs (95.4%), and is updated approximately every 10 minutes (more than 6000 updates were recorded during a month of testing).
The next one, Kaspersky Internet Security 2009, was updated 10 times less often, but also received high ratings in detecting malicious software (detection of malicious software – 98.4%, advertising and spyware – 98.3%). The best results (detection 99.1–99.8%) were shown by AVK 2008 and AVK 2009 from G-Data, which use scanners from Avast!Antivus, BitDefender (version 2009), and Kaspersky (version 7.0 2008).
Among the outsiders of the test are the domestic Dr.Web for Windows 4.44 and the Hungarian VirusBuster Professional 10.86.1, which uses the antivirus module of the Outpost Pro line. "Doctor Web" declined to comment on the results of Andreas Marx's testing. Alexei Belkin, head of the department at Agnitum, which develops Outpost, explained the failure of the Hungarian product as "different testing conditions". He reminded CNews that the same Andreas Marx, "who recently tested Outpost Security Suite Pro 2009 for the German magazine Com! magazin (issue 10 for 2008), recorded 100% detection of viruses, spies, worms, and malicious software" in Agnitum products.
Results of the AV-Test.org test. Products are arranged by the success of detecting malicious and "spyware and advertising" software
At "Kaspersky Lab", one of the leaders of the test, the quality of the test is assessed "rather positively". However, Oleg Gudilin, head of the strategic marketing department of LK, noted in a conversation with CNews that "the company is currently clarifying with the authors of the test the points that are unclear to the developer". "Kaspersky", which wrote a new engine for its 2009 line, remained unclear why Andreas Marx "did not take into account the technologies for optimizing the check that exist in the products of the "Laboratory" and did not indicate the scale according to which the assessment was carried out."
The developers of the Nod32 antivirus from ESET are dissatisfied with the results of the test. "The results of the AV-Test.org test have always caused mixed reactions among antivirus software developers. The fact is that the collection of malicious samples, which is the main component of such tests, is largely closed," says Grigory Vasiliev, technical director of ESET Russia. "It is highly likely that the collection contains, along with truly malicious programs, 'clean', harmless samples that have ceased to be dangerous. As strange as it may seem, the collection of the AV-Test.org resource largely consists of threats of yesterday, so the results of the test cannot be considered 100% correct."
P.S. Let Witcher-L just say that Web is crap, and Nod is always the best.
General results of the AV-Test.org test. Products are arranged in alphabetical order
Notes:
[*1] AVK 2008 uses the antivirus engines of Avast! and "Kaspersky"
[*2] AVK 2009 uses the antivirus engines of Avast! and BitDefender
[*3] WebWasher uses the Avira engine and a heuristic engine of its own development
[*4] The free (for personal use) edition does not include recognition of advertising and spyware, so the result should be "--"
In the results of the test, a system of conditional designations-assessments was used. For example, an antivirus product that found more than 98% of virus samples, never made a mistake when detecting clean files, and showed a signature update time of less than 2 hours in response to a new threat, received an assessment of "++". A product with 95% detection, 1-2 false positives, and a response time of up to 4 hours received a "+". 0 was given to an antivirus that caught 90% of viruses, made 3-4 mistakes, and showed a response time of 4-6 hours. "-" was given to products that showed a detection rate of slightly more than 85%, 5-6 errors, and a 6-8 hour response to a threat. "--" is for antiviruses that did not achieve these results.
One of the best antiviruses in all positions was Norton Internet Security 2009 beta, which showed high results in detecting viruses (98.7%) and spyware and advertising programs (95.4%), and is updated approximately every 10 minutes (more than 6000 updates were recorded during a month of testing).
The next one, Kaspersky Internet Security 2009, was updated 10 times less often, but also received high ratings in detecting malicious software (detection of malicious software – 98.4%, advertising and spyware – 98.3%). The best results (detection 99.1–99.8%) were shown by AVK 2008 and AVK 2009 from G-Data, which use scanners from Avast!Antivus, BitDefender (version 2009), and Kaspersky (version 7.0 2008).
Among the outsiders of the test are the domestic Dr.Web for Windows 4.44 and the Hungarian VirusBuster Professional 10.86.1, which uses the antivirus module of the Outpost Pro line. "Doctor Web" declined to comment on the results of Andreas Marx's testing. Alexei Belkin, head of the department at Agnitum, which develops Outpost, explained the failure of the Hungarian product as "different testing conditions". He reminded CNews that the same Andreas Marx, "who recently tested Outpost Security Suite Pro 2009 for the German magazine Com! magazin (issue 10 for 2008), recorded 100% detection of viruses, spies, worms, and malicious software" in Agnitum products.
Results of the AV-Test.org test. Products are arranged by the success of detecting malicious and "spyware and advertising" software
At "Kaspersky Lab", one of the leaders of the test, the quality of the test is assessed "rather positively". However, Oleg Gudilin, head of the strategic marketing department of LK, noted in a conversation with CNews that "the company is currently clarifying with the authors of the test the points that are unclear to the developer". "Kaspersky", which wrote a new engine for its 2009 line, remained unclear why Andreas Marx "did not take into account the technologies for optimizing the check that exist in the products of the "Laboratory" and did not indicate the scale according to which the assessment was carried out."
The developers of the Nod32 antivirus from ESET are dissatisfied with the results of the test. "The results of the AV-Test.org test have always caused mixed reactions among antivirus software developers. The fact is that the collection of malicious samples, which is the main component of such tests, is largely closed," says Grigory Vasiliev, technical director of ESET Russia. "It is highly likely that the collection contains, along with truly malicious programs, 'clean', harmless samples that have ceased to be dangerous. As strange as it may seem, the collection of the AV-Test.org resource largely consists of threats of yesterday, so the results of the test cannot be considered 100% correct."
P.S. Let Witcher-L just say that Web is crap, and Nod is always the best.