How good is your antivirus?

[dreamthief]

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 June 28, 2004 by dreamthief

[Ficman]

My Symantec has never failed me... :yes:

[l0g0ut]

My [put your antivirus here]has never failed me... 

how would you know if it has failed you? it's not like every virus you got will laugh at your face "Ha ha... gotcha". most virus nowadays are silent and pretty good at hiding themselves.

p/s: this is not a personal attack. i just can't stand comments like that.

[DOGglee]

My Symantec has never failed me... :yes:

nv failed me too :D

[Chrysalis]

sometimes its easy to tell other times its not.

eg. if you use irc then suddenly see you have a weird ident you havent seen before that is one sign of infection, other symptons could be task manager not functioning or netstats not functioning. I just run a port scan on myself every now and then to check for unusual open ports.

[Kobra]

But wasn't this the one which said they discontinue??

So in all these test just shown Every one of the is capable. .........

SAV is just too good ^^

No, MKS is alive and well, they just launched their product in the US marketplace last week.

http://www.stormbyte.com/

MKS is one of the founders of the ITW list, so you can be assured of ITW protection, but the product has great heuristics, and is fast and very light on your system.. I like it..

I run AVK on most machines here, but MKS on a couple for testing. So far so good.

[Gary_Player]

Download gets to 100% and MSN 9.1 (beta testing) ****-canns it...

I just tried with IE and same thing...d/l got to 100% and it got rid of it...running McAfee Enterprize 7.1

[iller]

Norman Antivirus scanner engine: 5.70.14 last update 2004-07-09

[lifesize loudsound]

I use F-Prot Antivirus (from Frisk Software), and it let me download the zip file, but wouldn't let me scan it. It actually popped up a warning shortly after I downloaded it saying I had an infected file, and showing the location. So I moved it to the Recycle Bin, and immediately F-Prot popped up another window saying I had an infected file in my Recycle Bin. So it seemed to work pretty well.

The thing I like about F-Prot is that it doesn't hog a bunch of memory, stays out of your way for the most part.

[Mike Frett]

I recently got F-Prot also but it don't seem to want to delete or fix anything, Just pop up warnings.

My old norton 2003 use to delete the files or fix them. I don't really understand it.

[Slimy]

I recently got F-Prot also but it don't seem to want to delete or fix anything, Just pop up warnings.

My old norton 2003 use to delete the files or fix them. I don't really understand it.

f-prot is better than norton

symantec is better than f-prot

get 9.0 corp

[dazdanny]

NAV 2004 pro

[throwbackkid]

I use NV Corp 9 for my windows server 2003 box but im now switching to McAfee? VirusScan Enterprise 8.0i which was released yesterday i was beta testing it in the early stages of it but nows its done so will be picking that up now so going to drop corp 9 but dont get me wrong i think corp 9 is the great program but mcafee new one is better test it out for ya'll self i know.

[redgrave]

Hi all, my first post in this forum. I used Kasperky 5 to scan the file, and in the first scan it indeed found 605 infected objects (set to disinfect and if not possible, delete). I found it very weird and downloaded the file again and set Kaspersky to delete the objects without trying to desinfect, and this way it finds 587 infected objects.

Edited July 22, 2004 by redgrave

[Slimy]

Hi all, my first post in this forum. I used Kasperky 5 to scan the file, and in the first scan it indeed found 605 infected objects (set to disinfect and if not possible, delete). I found it very weird and downloaded the file again and set Kaspersky to delete the objects without trying to desinfect, and this way it finds 587 infected objects.

that explains a lot, thanks

[VG11489]

pretty good

[lil_huey123]

it's a whole lot of information thrown around. here's a summary:

Avast Personal (Free Antivirus): 585 of 594

Avast Pro 4.1.418: 585 of 602

AVG Free edition: Found 556 of 594(?)

AVG 7 Pro: Found 559 of 601

AVG(version not stated): 588 of 594

Bit Defender Free Edition 7.2: 588 of 594

etrust ez antivirus: 582 of 594

eXtendia Antivirus AVK Pro: 587 of 593 / another had 615 of ???

FProt: about 587 of 594 for zipped files, found 594 after extraction

F-secure Client Security Suite 5.52, build 10130: 587 of 595

Kapersky 5.0: 587 from 594

McAfee v7 and 8: 588 of 594

McAfee 2004 home: 587 of 611

McAfee VirusScan v4.5.1 SP1: 585 of 595

MKS_Vir 2004: 580 of 594

NOD32: Found 577 of 589, fixed 566

NOD32: Found 582 of 593

NOD32: Found 579 of 593

NOD32, Version 1.784 (20040610): 584 of 594

Norton Antivirus 2004: Found 591, fixed 300 of 600

Norton Antivirus 2004 pro: 590 of 594

NAV2004 25-06-04 virus defs: Found 590 out of 598, 300 repaired

Norton Antivirus 2003: 588 of 600, 295 fixed

Norton 2002 with latest defs: files scanned 600,infected 588,repaired 287

Panda Planitum Internet Security: Detects 588 of 594

Panda antivirus platinum 7.07.00: 588 of 594

PC-Cillin 2003: 587 of 594

SAVCE 9.0.0.1300 with def 6/25/2004: 588 of 594

SAV 9.0.0.338, Scan Engine 1.2.0.13: 589 of 594 (newer)

Symantec Antivirus 9.0(Build 9.0.0.338): Detects 589 of 594

Symantec AV Corp Ed 8.1: Found 588 of 594

Sophos AV: 587 of 598

Trend Micro Internet Security: 587 found of 594.

TrendMicro Enterprise Edition: 588 of 594

Zone Alarm Security Suite Antivirus: 582 of 595

ZoneAlarm Security Suite v5: 582 of 595 files

it's certainly obvious that the virus lists that were used to test these antivirus programs do not tell much about the reliability of the programs, perhaps because many of the viruses in the lists are old viruses, hence most antivirus programs would already be immune to those.

of all these, extendia avk seems to be among the better ones with daily definition updates. norton and mcafee(if i'm not mistaken) are known to be memory hogs. there's much more consideration to take when deciding which is better for your use. hopefully some expert can add some advice to this. :D

[f0rbez]

Someone mentioned that Symantec Anti Virus doesn't scan within rar files. Is this true? I was gonna install but if it can't scan rar files then hells no.

[Slimy]

Someone mentioned that Symantec Anti Virus doesn't scan within rar files. Is this true? I was gonna install but if it can't scan rar files then hells no.

no that's not true

[Slimy]

it's a whole lot of information thrown around. here's a summary:

Avast Personal (Free Antivirus): 585 of 594

Avast Pro 4.1.418: 585 of 602

AVG Free edition: Found 556 of 594(?)

AVG 7 Pro: Found 559 of 601

AVG(version not stated): 588 of 594

Bit Defender Free Edition 7.2: 588 of 594

etrust ez antivirus: 582 of 594

eXtendia Antivirus AVK Pro: 587 of 593 / another had 615 of ???

FProt: about 587 of 594 for zipped files, found 594 after extraction

F-secure Client Security Suite 5.52, build 10130: 587 of 595

Kapersky 5.0: 587 from 594

McAfee v7 and 8: 588 of 594

McAfee 2004 home: 587 of 611

McAfee VirusScan v4.5.1 SP1: 585 of 595

MKS_Vir 2004: 580 of 594

NOD32: Found 577 of 589, fixed 566

NOD32: Found 582 of 593

NOD32: Found 579 of 593

NOD32, Version 1.784 (20040610): 584 of 594

Norton Antivirus 2004: Found 591, fixed 300 of 600

Norton Antivirus 2004 pro: 590 of 594

NAV2004 25-06-04 virus defs: Found 590 out of 598, 300 repaired

Norton Antivirus 2003: 588 of 600, 295 fixed

Norton 2002 with latest defs: files scanned 600,infected 588,repaired 287

Panda Planitum Internet Security: Detects 588 of 594

Panda antivirus platinum 7.07.00: 588 of 594

PC-Cillin 2003: 587 of 594

SAVCE 9.0.0.1300 with def 6/25/2004: 588 of 594

SAV 9.0.0.338, Scan Engine 1.2.0.13: 589 of 594 (newer)

Symantec Antivirus 9.0(Build 9.0.0.338): Detects 589 of 594

Symantec AV Corp Ed 8.1: Found 588 of 594

Sophos AV: 587 of 598

Trend Micro Internet Security: 587 found of 594.

TrendMicro Enterprise Edition: 588 of 594

Zone Alarm Security Suite Antivirus: 582 of 595

ZoneAlarm Security Suite v5: 582 of 595 files

it's certainly obvious that the virus lists that were used to test these antivirus programs do not tell much about the reliability of the programs, perhaps because many of the viruses in the lists are old viruses, hence most antivirus programs would already be immune to those.

of all these, extendia avk seems to be among the better ones with daily definition updates. norton and mcafee(if i'm not mistaken) are known to be memory hogs. there's much more consideration to take when deciding which is better for your use. hopefully some expert can add some advice to this. :D

the original author should edit their first post

[Slimy]

oh, welcome to neowin lil_huey123

[f0rbez]

no that's not true

good news. thanks slimy. :happy:

[f0rbez]

it's certainly obvious that the virus lists that were used to test these antivirus programs do not tell much about the reliability of the programs, perhaps because many of the viruses in the lists are old viruses, hence most antivirus programs would already be immune to those.

maybe we need some virii writers to create some unique things not in the defs to test the heuristics now. :ninja:

[itsnotabigtruck]

Missed 3 with medium heuristics on NAV 2004 10.0.1.13.

[Jon]

Almost all the virus scanners are same.

I think that statement needs a little clarification. What I hope you mean is that almost all virus scanners can detect all known in-the-wild viruses, under lab conditions. That's pretty much a fact.

Your other points are pretty much correct, the emphasis should be on (5) and then the frequency and accuracy of updates (which involves point 2). Detecting a virus is often simple when compaired to actually repairing its damage.

'Lab condition' tests are almost entirely meaningless. In my experience all AV scanners perform very differently in a live environment where many variables exist.

[Slimy]

does anyone know of another "newer" set of virii?