• 0

How good is your antivirus?


Question

Since most would like to argue bout what is the best antivirus. I decided to open this thread solely for testing your preferred antivirus. This is a compilation of a group of hackers.

*************WARNING*************

THIS IS NOT FOR THE SCAREDY CATS. THERE ARE ALL VALID VIRUSES. DO NOT OPEN THEM OR EXTRACT THEM TO ANY LOCATION. SAFEST METHOD TO TEST YOUR ANTIVIRUS IS TO SCAN THE COMPRESSED FILE. I WILL NOT TAKE ANY RESPONSIBILITIES FOR YOUR ACTION.

Here's a link to download an archive file containing the viruses. READ THE WARNING BELOW BEFORE CLICKING HERE

TEST THIS AT YOUR OWN RISK

If you dare to take this challenge, do post the screenshots of the antivirus in action and please do not use any Photoshoping skills to manipulate the results.

Try to post at least the following information for others to evaluate

1) Program/scan engine version (Exm NAV 2004, AVG 6 Paid Version, SAV 9.0.0.338 and etc)

2) Any settings you changed

3) Screenshots (Optional as proof)

EDIT: Contrary to the filename which tells you 455 viruses, no it is not. Actual total is 593. If your antivirus detected them all, well done.

Edited by dreamthief
Link to comment
https://www.neowin.net/forum/topic/182983-how-good-is-your-antivirus/
Share on other sites

Recommended Posts

  • 0

dont do this guys, i know he said that he is not responsible, but after deleting the file , somehow the virus managed to infect mah pc & i had to do a whole reformat ( cmon who likes being infected with 588 viruses at the same time ) so i guess its best to say that we are not safe from any kinda viruses no matter how good we think we are & what we use . but please for gods sake dont do this coz i belive that there are 600 files in that zip so all of em are viruses if we detect 595 or whatever number ,it still means that we didnt find the remaining 5 or 10 or whatever number of viruses , so please dont do this ,it may well screw up your pc ( though im not blaming the original poster of those files )

  • 0

I'm kinda curiouse about the validity of these virii as well.

I.e. are they all valid win.32. infecting viruses?

Are they all actual viruses and not just left over viral code from an actual infection?

Are they all completeviruses in the first place and not broken ones that can't infect?

Are they actual viruses and not juse certain things classified by some companies so they look better in tests?

I don't buy it at the moment and without a full list I can't find out what the files my virus scanner missed actually are. For what it's worth I use McAfee VS 8 and it only detected around 200(not going to run it again because I have to click yes/no for every file so you have to settle for that rough estimation).

If I had a full list of what McAfee missed than I could see if they're all valid but at te moment I think alot of them are failures, "hacker tools" as Kasperky calls them, or remnants.

  • 0

@Rahul?

I don't believe that these virii can actually infect your computer by just having them on your harddisk. Then should only infect your computer if you actually run them. So, if you got infected, it's probably something else or you could have accidently opened one of the files. If you had one of the "better" AV apps installed and duly updated, even running the virus would not have gotten you infected unless you're unlucky enough to have double clicked on one of the 6 or 8 virii that most AV apps seem to miss.

@mAcOdIn

If they weren't "valid win.32. infecting viruses" AV apps in Windows won't be able to identify them. As shown by the guy who tried accessing them in Linux and didn't get infected by a single one, these virri only affect win32 systems, i.e. Windows.

I don't know much about virii, but whether or not they are actual viruses and not just left over viral code from an actual infection doesn't really bother me. As long my AV app can recognise both and can clean/delete/quarantine everything, I'm a satisfied customer. Also, if a virus is not "complete" and cannot infect a computer, is it considered a virus?

Even if you had a full list, are you going to go through every single virus which your AV app did not catch and identify it? If you did do that, I'd say I admire you for your patience.

From what other users have posted here and from personal experience, only Kaspersky has a history of false positives (despite it's very good detection rate). Moreover as the original poster mentioned, the virii are "quite "famous" used to test antivirus". If you really want to find out, search google or Viruslist.com and try to identify whatever virus you want.

Everyone should actually send the zip file to the AV companies so that they can improve their detection rate. One down side is that, this will end up being like the eicar test file (which every AV app should easily detect) which is basically pointless.

  • 0

this test doesn't mean much

It's obvious the archive wasn't assembled by a professional, so each file might contain more than one virus or no virus at all - or non-Windows viruses. Also, without a full list of the viruses it's supposed to contain, we can't know if each AV is doing a perfect job or not, because all AV's do it differently. Just because it says it detected less than expected doesn't mean your computer is at risk - just because it detected more than expected doesn't mean your computer is safe.

Anyways, here's my screenie from my old AV.

McAfee VirusScan v4.5.1 SP1:

post-12-1088343396.png

  • 0
Ok, this is scary. My results were not very good. Using the latest dat files with Norton AV 2004 Pro. Should I change to some other AV software?

In actuality Norton Detected 589 files.

289 of which have not been quarantined. And if you noticed when you completed the download of the file norton alerted of a load of viruses of which some were instantly Removed and others Quarantined immediately.

So i wouldn't doubt all 594 were found. It so happens that norton removed some before the file could finalize it's download and then quarantined 300...and warned of the additional 289 suspicious files.

I got the same as alert as you with 289 but then go into your Quarantine section you will see 300 more and don't forget some have now been deleted from the zip file by norton already.

  • 0

Got newer defs for AVG 7 Pro this morning. No change in detection.

If AV companies are removing older virus definitions to save space or for whatever reason, this is a bad idea. I'm sure these viruses are lurking somewhere on the net.

Edited by denzilla
  • 0
Got newer defs for AVG 7 Pro this morning. No change in detection.

If AV companies are removing older virus definitions to save space or for whatever reason, this is a bad idea. I'm sure these viruses are lurking somewhere on the net.

Of course they are on the net were do you think we are DLing them from :rolleyes:

  • 0

I guess I win. Mine detected 615 viruses... eXtendia AVK, using the Kaspersky AND RAV engines in duel engine double-scan mode. I noticed many were missed by Kaspersky engine, but since RAV backs it up, they picked them up.

S_avkboxa.JPG

Guess 2 in 1 is better than 1 after all. :D

Edit: Here is what i'm talking about.. AVK tells you which engine found what, if they both find the threat, then it tells you both.. In this case, Kaspersky missed several, which the RAV backup engine detected.

avkresults.JPG

Edited by Kobra
  • 0

Thats an interesting AV app. Some questions though:

1. What amount of system resources does this AV place on your PC? I would think running 2 AV engines would slow the PC down a fair bit.

2. I've never heard of this AV before. How well is it supported and how ofter are the definitions updated?

  • 0

Here are the results from SAV Corp 8.1 fully updated. By the way, does anyone know if you can slipstream the latest updates into the disc? It is a real pain to load this on a computer at work that has a dialup connection. I immediately have 5 meg of updates waiting on me.

  • 0
Wait a minunte...

If ZSS scores better than etrust AV 7, that means the person

who did testing with EAV7 was using InoculateIT engine.

That person may wanna do it again after switching to VET engine

( same one used by ZSS).

yes, i was using inoculateIT for local scanning. VET was much better. ;)

  • 0
Thats an interesting AV app. Some questions though:

1. What amount of system resources does this AV place on your PC? I would think running 2 AV engines would slow the PC down a fair bit.

2. I've never heard of this AV before. How well is it supported and how ofter are the definitions updated?

Resource use with eXtendia AVK is very small its one of the smaller AV's out there. About 8,000k ram or so, this varies a tiny bit. Depending on configuration, and system, it can be fully configured to match any system. I've installed it on 500mhz machines, and 3.6ghz machines to great effect, but it took a few options tweaks on the 500mhz machine. Heres a shot of its memory usage after about 5 hours:

avkusage01.JPG

As for updates, they come fast and furious, usually 10-20 definition updates per 24 hour period. Lookng at my logs, i've recieved about 15 KAV updates(approx), and 1 RAV update in the last 24 hours.

Begin Internet update (virus database)

Start time: 27/06/2004 14:01

KAV-Engine: Update transferred... OK!

RAV-Engine: Update transferred... OK!

KAV-Engine: Internet update transferred successfully.

RAV-Engine: Internet update transferred successfully.

Quit: 27/06/2004 14:02

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • My father still uses a programme written in dbase3. Still manages to work with a little help from dosbox. 
    • Microsoft hides these secret Windows 11 performance boost settings available on every PC by Sayan Sen Windows enthusiasts often look for ways to extract as much performance out of their systems as possible, and it's often the case that they try and do so while trying to minimize the heat and power consumption. This is especially relevant in the case of mobile Windows PCs since laptops and notebooks tend to get hot and management of that heat and power is harder in such a form factor. As such users often turn to techniques like under-volting which can be used to squeeze out the maximum capabilities of a chip while also maintaining lowered power levels. There are official apps from AMD and Intel with the likes of Ryzen Master and XTU (Extreme Tuning Utility). While these are quite handy, most enthusiasts probably prefer to dig into the BIOS and play around with settings there like Curve Optimizer on Ryzen, which lets users set various frequency-voltage scaling values. These are essentially called P-States. If you are not familiar with them, Processor Power Management is done through Advanced Configuration and Power Interface (ACPI) P-states and C-states. While P-states or performance pwoer states handle CPU voltage-frequency scaling, C-states deal with CPU sleep states so that some of the CPU functions, which are not necessary at that moment, can be disabled. The P-states and C-states work together to make the processor run more efficiently. It helps the OS and apps determine which cores can be parked and which should be boosted. Of course not every user is an enthusiast or knows the technicalities and integrities of how things like overclocking or undervolting work. Thankfully for them Windows itself offers something pretty cool, though it is hidden by default on all systems. By default, Windows only has two P-States, "Minimum Processor State" and "Maximum Processor State." However, this can be changed with a Registry trick to expand the options under a secret "Processor performance boost mode" dropdown. This essentially enables the HWP or hardware P-States available on a device, and these are not controlled just by the OS itself as the underlying hardware gets involved too. In total there are five Processor Performance Boost Mode profiles that control how Windows requests and allows CPU turbo/boost behavior under the different power policies. They are: Disabled: In this mode, processor boosting is effectively turned off. The CPU will avoid entering turbo or boost frequencies and instead operate closer to its base frequency ceiling. This can significantly reduce power consumption and heat output, but at the cost of reduced burst performance and responsiveness in short workloads. Enabled: This is the standard behavior where boost functionality is allowed under normal conditions. The processor can opportunistically increase frequency when workload demands it, balancing performance gains with power and thermal constraints as managed by the system. Aggressive: Aggressive mode favors performance more heavily, allowing the CPU to enter higher boost states more readily and sustain them longer. This should in theory improve responsiveness under bursty or heavy workloads but increases power draw and thermal output compared to the default enabled behavior. Efficient Enabled: This mode still allows boosting, but with a stronger bias toward energy efficiency. The system attempts to use boost more selectively, avoiding unnecessary frequency spikes when the performance gain is marginal. Efficient Aggressive: This is a hybrid approach where boost is still performance-responsive, but the system continuously weighs efficiency more heavily than in Aggressive mode. It aims to deliver noticeable performance improvements while reducing wasted power in less demanding scenarios. Here's how to enable the Processor performance boost mode: Open Registry Editor: Press Win+R, type regedit, and click OK. Go to: HKLM\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Control\Power\PowerSettings\54533251-82be-4824-96c1-47b60b740d00\be337238-0d82-4146-a960-4f3749d470c7 (where HKLM stands for HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE_) Modify the value of Attributes from 1 to 2 (you can find modify option by right-clicking) After that, exit Registry, you should now be able to see the new "Processor performance boost mode" dropdown menu: As you can see there are now five new P-States or CPPC states or power profile available that help define the boost mode processor setting on your PC. Wrapping it up here's a quick run-down of the settings as defined by Microsoft itself. Setting Description Disabled The corresponding P-state-based behaviour is disabled. Collaborative Processor Performance Control (CPPC) behaviour is disabled. Enabled The corresponding P-state-based behaviour is enabled. CPPC behaviour is Efficient Enabled. Aggressive The corresponding P-state-based behaviour is enabled. CPPC behaviour is Aggressive. Efficient Enabled The corresponding P-state-based behaviour is Efficient. CPPC behaviour is Efficient Enabled. Efficient Aggressive The corresponding P-state-based behaviour is Efficient. CPPC behaviour is Aggressive. Aggressive At Guaranteed Windows calculates the desired extra performance above the guaranteed performance level, and asks the processor to deliver that specific performance level. Efficient Aggressive At Guaranteed Windows always asks the processor to deliver the highest possible performance above the guaranteed performance level. In the next part we shall be comparing these settings to explore how much of a benefit or regression they can provide in terms of performance and power efficiency. If you decide to change the values on your system and are experiencing problems like crashes or an overheating PC, make sure to revert the steps back to the original state.
    • I think he means you haven't reviewed previous UFC games. Of course it doesn't matter... Every time you just report on something that involves the President even if just simply what happened you guys usually get accused of being anti-Trump. We live in fun times.
  • Recent Achievements

    • One Month Later
      Leroy Jethro Gibbs earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Conversation Starter
      flexorcist earned a badge
      Conversation Starter
    • One Month Later
      AndreaB earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • One Month Later
      agatameier earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Week One Done
      agatameier earned a badge
      Week One Done
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      518
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      198
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      147
    4. 4
      ATLien_0
      93
    5. 5
      Steven P.
      77
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!