New VIRUS.GR virus report! Best on the net!

By Tokar
in Back Page News

 Share

Recommended Posts

Community Regular

Hekx

Posted
Posted

Norton does have good detection rates, probably due to the vastness of their signature database.

But at the cost of greater detection through the large database, it has the tag of being a resource hog.

NOD32 is unique as said before from its heuristics detection, which ideally means the database can be lesser and it has a greater chance of identifying new viruses.

Veteran

Tokar

Posted
  • Author
Posted
For some reason, I don't really trust that site. Virus bulletin is what I've always checked.

http://www.virusbtn.com/vb100/archives/products.xml?eset.xml

585822327[/snapback]

sure...virus bulletin is trust worthy, but it never publishes numbers like virus.gr does...for comparing products that is. All you have to go by is Pass/Fail on certain tests...tests you dont know the specifics of.

Virus Bulletin vs Virus.gr is like with college classes. You can choose pass/fail, or number graded.

Pass/Fail says like anything above a certain point is PASS, and everything below that point is FAIL. Never knowing how the students compare since people who pass are all on the same level.

Grand Master

Andrew Lyle Global Moderator

Posted
  • Global Moderator
Posted

meh.. this is why internet is so bad.. and loser programmers have nothing better to do. let's create viruses and spread them, and go to jail for releasing something that crashes computers, deletes files :)

is CREATING a programmar that executes onto your PC, destroys other peoples property worth a lawsuit and possible jail time?

Veteran

Tokar

Posted
  • Author
Posted
meh.. this is why internet is so bad.. and loser programmers have nothing better to do.  let's create viruses and spread them, and go to jail for releasing something that crashes computers, deletes files :)

is CREATING a programmar that executes onto your PC, destroys other peoples property worth a lawsuit and possible jail time?

585823234[/snapback]

apparently, theres a virus out there that deletes MP3's :(...

Experienced

Cyber Dog

Posted
Posted
bull**** tests, norton can't be that high, corp prob. can but v2005 is so bloated and horrible and doing it's job i find that site garbage

585823366[/snapback]

What a stupid comment. These tests aren't judging based on performance or interface, they're judging on detection rate. And since symantec corp and 2005 use roughly the same definition files, they should be roughly equal in any such test.

Grand Master

Cyrilix

Posted
Posted

I hope you guys realize that the site used to say:

Malware = Adware, DoS, Constructors, Exploit, Flooders, Hoax, Jokes, Nukers, Sniffers, Spoofers, Virus Construction Tools, Virus Tools, Corrupted, Droppers, Intended, PolyEngines.

Hoaxes? Jokes? Corrupted? Are you kidding me?

That's what it used to say, and I can vouch for that until the guy on the site changed it to what it is now. He better have an explanation for this. This test is simply not trustworthy.

Grand Master

+Random Stranger Subscriber¹

Posted
  • Subscriber¹
Posted

28. AVG version 7.0.308 - 54.07%

horrible. what a blow to avg lovers.

anyhow. symantec corp is going strong, that is all a care for.

interesting to see AVK version 15.0.5 - which uses both kasperski and microsoft bought engine - score lower then kasperski alone.

also few other issues ake me doubt the trustworthiness of the tests.

Grand Master

Slimy

Posted
Posted
What a stupid comment.  These tests aren't judging based on performance or interface, they're judging on detection rate.  And since symantec corp and 2005 use roughly the same definition files, they should be roughly equal in any such test.

585823404[/snapback]

not necessarily true, an av can be destroyed by a virus if the virus disables it, no matter the definition files, detection is one thing but actually sucessfully removing the virus is another, i've seen norton find viruses often and fail to do anything good not to mention the amount of viruses it has missed catching, symantec corp and nav do not use the definition files in the same way, based on what i've seen

Grand Master

revvo

Posted
Posted
meh.. this is why internet is so bad.. and loser programmers have nothing better to do.  let's create viruses and spread them, and go to jail for releasing something that crashes computers, deletes files :)

585823234[/snapback]

Writing viruses is a learning experience. (unless the virus contains ten lines of code that executes something else..., I'm talking about non-nooby virus codin). One that has evil intentions but a learning one nevertheless.

This is why some of the wicked "hax0rs" get great jobs because they know how to bypass holes that they discovered and such.

They deserve to go to jail if they intentionally wanted to disrupt production servers that affect thousands of ppl.

Yeah I may be off topic on this..... whatever, my 2 cents. :ninja:

Grand Master

mAcOdIn Veteran

Posted
  • Veteran
Posted

The test sucks.

Nod 32 doesn't have the best detection in the world compared to Kaspersky and others, but at the same time this site paints an unrealistic picture of it and other AV's true performance.

For example Nod32 no longer detects most MS-Dos Viruses, spyware detection by most AV vendors is fairly limited, joke files aren't even viruses, corrupted viruses should never be on the list considering they don't work, etc the test is lame.

I really don't think Nod 32 is all that, but at the same time you're well off with it, well unless you live in the US and need tech support, but that's a different subject all together.

Mentor

struct

Posted
Posted

there are some serious NOD32 fanboys here. I'm not putting you guys down and I'm not saying this test is 100% reputable, but you're being offered real proof that NOD32 doesn't hold up well to some of its competitors. What do you say to that? "Oh, NOD32 is still better than Norton even though the results showed the exact opposite." I don't understand that.

Grand Master

Cyrilix

Posted
Posted
there are some serious NOD32 fanboys here. I'm not putting you guys down and I'm not saying this test is 100% reputable, but you're being offered real proof that NOD32 doesn't hold up well to some of its competitors. What do you say to that? "Oh, NOD32 is still better than Norton even though the results showed the exact opposite." I don't understand that.

585825635[/snapback]

Read my comment -- I never said that.

How are you going to answer the question I posed about the "malware" category?

Veteran

Tokar

Posted
  • Author
Posted

a few comments based on other users comments:

i think this test is very trustworthy. one of the guys in that wildersecurity forum said that the guy who does the test is not trustworthy since he is a virus collector. i think that being a virus collector makes him more trustworthy. He has 91000+ viruses in their original form. The guy is dedicated to virus collecting...

i have to agree with that guy who commented on the NOD32 faithful. Pretty strong evidence provided against NOD32's performance. Quite interesting how the faithful are staying put...

the guy who ran the test said he runs no real time protection. He runs occasional virus scans of his hard drives using three different virus scanning products.

Personally I couldnt care less about which product between NOD32 and Norton is better. All I care about is that the Kaspersky engine is much better than both products combined.

I asked the maker, he said that Kaspersky Personal is not listed because it is the same exact engine as Kaspersky Personal Pro.

He has already fixed the numbering problems that people on the wildersecurity forum made note of. The file has been since updated...as well as the PDF and XLS files within.

As far as the differences between products using the same engines, the guy said that the numbers dont lie...he just does the tests.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.