Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="earthling" data-source="post: 1836656" data-attributes="member: 967">So I,m carrying forward the gud work originally started by Chaminga-below are the Anti-Virus Solutions Comparisons - March 2008 Test Results by AV-Test.orgIntroductionThe number of unique malware samples received by AV-Test.org increased from 333,000 in 2005 to 972,000 in 2006 and reached 5,490,000 in 2007. During January and February 2008 alone we found more than 1.1 million samples spreading in the internet.All products were tested in the best available 2008 security suite editions in English language. The tools were last updated on March 1, 2008 and tested on Windows XP SP2 (English).Test MethodIn case of the actual testing, we first checked the signature-based on-demand detection of all products against more than 1.1 million inactive samples we've found spreading or which were distributed during the last two months. We included all malware categories in the test: Trojan Horses, backdoors, bots, worms and viruses. Instead of just presenting the results, we categorized the products this time, from "very good" (++) if the scanner detected more than 98% of the samples to "poor" (--) when less than 85% of the malware was detected. (Ed: For the US version, I have changed this to letter grades — A, B, C, etc.)Possibly unwanted applications like ad- and spyware had to be detected. A collection of more than 80,000 inactive samples was used for this test. We used the same ranking criteria as for the malware detection rates. Besides, we checked the number of false positives the products generated during a scan of 100,000 known clean files. This includes common files from different Microsoft Windows and Office versions as well as other well-known products and drivers. Only suites with no false positives received a "very good" (++) rating.Furthermore, we checked how long AV companies usually need to react in case of new, widespread malware (read: outbreaks), based on 55 different samples from the entire year 2007 and 3 samples seen in 2008. "Very good" (++) AV product developers should be able to react within less than two hours and we found a reaction time of more than 8 hours unacceptable and thus, "Very poor" (--).(<a href="http://sunbeltblog.blogspot.com/2008/03/march-test-results-of-antivirus.html" target="_blank">For the Comprehensive Test Method- Here's the Source[user friendly ver.]</a>) or <a href="http://www.av-test.org/index.php?sub=Papers&menue=1&lang=0" target="_blank">Original Paper in AV-Test.org</a>Detection of ad- and spyware<img src="http://img168.imageshack.us/img168/489/spytl6.jpg" alt="" class="fr-fic fr-dii fr-draggable " style="" />Detection of malware sample<img src="http://img236.imageshack.us/img236/5890/malfy8.jpg" alt="" class="fr-fic fr-dii fr-draggable " style="" /><a href="http://www.sunbelt-software.com/ihs/alex/Results_2D2008m3b_US.htm" target="_blank">Anti-virus comparison test of current anti-malware products, March 2008 - Comprehensive Test Results</a></blockquote>

Verification: Hathara warak wissa keeyada? (Hathara wadi karanna 20)

Top Bottom