latest detection rate URL for AV programs? best SECOND malware engine, stand-alone is?
RayLopez99
Magazine's review from last year and another older one, that ranks how
various AV programs detect various malware. Generally the industry
paid-for versions that are #1 are Norton and Kaspersky (though
Kaspersky only detected 29%% of keyloggers and 67% of Rootkits, which
was worse than the base line 'free' version of MSFT Security
Essentials, at 50% and 89% respectively, and Norton at 86% and 89%).
Free versions that are right up there include AVG Anti-Virus Free
2011, Ad-Aware Free Internet Security 9.0, F-Secure, Double Anti-Spy
Professional, Comodo (about the same as Microsoft Security Essentials
actually, which is 'average'). I could not find Avast! or Avira in
this graph I'm looking at now but in another URL that I dont' have
before me it was right up there at least average or slightly above
average, which is fine with me.
First question for the group: the latest URL for AV comparisons and
detection rates is where? If it's handy. Like I said I got this URL
from PC Mag and just copied and pasted the conclusions.
Second question: what is a good SECOND malware engine that will not
interfere with your TSR first malware engine? I've heard Malwarebytes
anti-malware is good, but the one time I used it, a week ago,when I
had a known virus, it failed to detect the virus (which Kaspersky's
Live CD found). I am interested in a free version--is Ad-Aware Free
any good? Is it good as a second program or will it clash with what I
am using now (on various machines I have Comodo, Avast!, Avira and
Microsoft Security Essentials, all running Windows 7).
RL
FromTheRafters
> First question: I get these URLs off the net, and I have one from PC
> Magazine's review from last year and another older one, that ranks how
> various AV programs detect various malware. Generally the industry
> paid-for versions that are #1 are Norton and Kaspersky (though
> Kaspersky only detected 29%% of keyloggers and 67% of Rootkits, which
> was worse than the base line 'free' version of MSFT Security
> Essentials, at 50% and 89% respectively, and Norton at 86% and 89%).
Yeah, it has become difficult to sort the best detection rates now that
all types of malware are included in the test set. It was much easier to
get clearer results when anti*virus* programs were tested against
*viruses* and anything else was just gravy. Now the gravy has become the
most prevalent threat and weak anti*virus* programs can shine like diamonds.
> Free versions that are right up there include AVG Anti-Virus Free
> 2011, Ad-Aware Free Internet Security 9.0, F-Secure, Double Anti-Spy
> Professional, Comodo (about the same as Microsoft Security Essentials
> actually, which is 'average'). I could not find Avast! or Avira in
> this graph I'm looking at now but in another URL that I dont' have
> before me it was right up there at least average or slightly above
> average, which is fine with me.
>
> First question for the group: the latest URL for AV comparisons and
> detection rates is where? If it's handy. Like I said I got this URL
> from PC Mag and just copied and pasted the conclusions.
Something like this:
http://www.av-comparatives.org/
There used to be some other very respectable tests back when it was for
viruses only, don't know about now though.
>
> Second question: what is a good SECOND malware engine that will not
> interfere with your TSR first malware engine?
TSR is antiquated, but I know what you mean.
> I've heard Malwarebytes
> anti-malware is good, but the one time I used it, a week ago,when I
> had a known virus, it failed to detect the virus (which Kaspersky's
> Live CD found).
MBAM isn't designed specifically for viruses, but it very good at doing
what it *is* designed for - and will catch *some* viruses too. It is
great when coupled with a program designed to catch viruses very well
and gravy too.
> I am interested in a free version--is Ad-Aware Free
> any good? Is it good as a second program or will it clash with what I
> am using now (on various machines I have Comodo, Avast!, Avira and
> Microsoft Security Essentials, all running Windows 7).
Can't help you there, but I know that SUPERAntiSpyware and MBAM are very
good and play well with anti*virus* programs.
RayLopez99
OK thanks, bookmarked.
>
> There used to be some other very respectable tests back when it was for
> viruses only, don't know about now though.
>
>
>
> > Second question: what is a good SECOND malware engine that will not
> > interfere with your TSR first malware engine?
>
> TSR is antiquated, but I know what you mean.
What do they say now, young fella?
>
> > I've heard Malwarebytes
> > anti-malware is good, but the one time I used it, a week ago,when I
> > had a known virus, it failed to detect the virus (which Kaspersky's
> > Live CD found).
>
> MBAM isn't designed specifically for viruses, but it very good at doing
> what it *is* designed for - and will catch *some* viruses too. It is
> great when coupled with a program designed to catch viruses very well
> and gravy too.
>
> > I am interested in a free version--is Ad-Aware Free
> > any good? Is it good as a second program or will it clash with what I
> > am using now (on various machines I have Comodo, Avast!, Avira and
> > Microsoft Security Essentials, all running Windows 7).
>
> Can't help you there, but I know that SUPERAntiSpyware and MBAM are very
> good and play well with anti*virus* programs.
I see. Perhaps, given this insight, I'll give MBAM another chance.
Thanks.
RL
RayLopez99
> RayLopez99 wrote:
>
> > First question for the group: the latest URL for AV comparisons and
> > detection rates is where? If it's handy. Like I said I got this URL
> > from PC Mag and just copied and pasted the conclusions.
>
> Something like this:
>
> http://www.av-comparatives.org/
>
I noticed that Norton is not on the list, and F-Secure and Symantec do
well on the tests, with some minor fluctuations. Googling Symantec I
find that they make Norton!
On the fluctuations: could it be that the same PC running the same
tests will sometimes accidentally skip (or not completely check) an
infected file? Perhaps because it was under load and doing so much
multitasking? Curious as to why there are fluctuations month to month
in the score.
RL
Nobody > (Revisited)
> Googling Symantec I
> find that they make Norton!
What cave have you been in?
Symantec bought out Pete Norton in 1990.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norton_Utilities.
Symantec borged out most of the old big-name "DOS Utilities". They
snagged Central Point Software ("PCTools") in 1994 as well.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Point_Software
Regarding http://www.av-comparatives.org/
Personal opinion is to take their results with a fair dose of salt.
Their reputation now is pretty good, but they've gone thru some rather
bleak periods in the past. At one point, there was a very high suspicion
of them being paid shills for Symantec.
In reality, there's not a real wide gap between any of the better AV
apps. With the "Internet Push" updates of both engines and datafiles,
all of them are constantly changing too fast to state than any ONE app
is the "best" at any given time.
What I've concluded on choosing:
*Every* security app has various warts. Scan times, warning popups,
boot/shutdown times, performance hits, false pos/negs, areas not
covered, price, compatibility, usability for the end-user, etc. An app
can have stellar detection, but if you piss-off the end-user enough with
a wart that gets in their way of doing things, they *will* disable it
somehow (and usually forgetting to turn it back on). A disabled security
app is worse than none at all!
--
"Shit this is it, all the pieces do fit.
We're like that crazy old man jumping
out of the alleyway with a baseball bat,
saying, "Remember me motherfucker?"
Jim �Dandy� Mangrum
FromTheRafters
FromTheRafters
Methodology:
http://www.av-comparatives.org/images/stories/test/docs/methodology.pdf
Also you may want to note in the FAQ portion of the above document
11) Can you name me six other established testing institutions (apart
AV-Comparatives) that you consider noteworthy.
RayLopez99
I also found this independent testing site: http://www.av-test.org/
I am leaning towards buying F-Secure. Coincidentally their website
says they are 'officially' rated #1 (I only found this out after
coming to the same conclusion). They also seem to have jacked up
their price towards the high end of $60 for three pcs per year. But
they are noticeably better than the freeware AV programs I'm using
now, but not by a landslide.
RL