Recommended Posts

I'm in the process of testing antivirus software for my office. I'm deciding between two different applications, and I'd like to have some side-by-side comparisons of how well they work. I'm not interested in charts or anything like that that has already been done. I want to see for myself, a live test, of how effective each AV product is.

My users are fairly good at contracting viruses ( :p ), but I can't seem to find any! I'm using IE8 and surfing the internet without any AV software. I'm going to tons of warez & crackz sites, clicking on all the links I can find. My biggest problem is staying away from the porn, since anyone that walks around the corner will see that on my screen. I disabled images for IE to avoid this, but that probably also hindered my ability to get infected.

I already tried the Eicar test virus, but this is not a substantial test as far as I'm concerned. I want to get (a lot) of real viruses. Does anyone know of a sample I can get? If you have a known bad link, post it up!

Link to comment
https://www.neowin.net/forum/topic/883170-where-can-i-download-a-virus/
Share on other sites

Personally I would use data found by other trusted sources. Just because an anti virus can pick up something in one of your tests doesn't mean it will pick up something else in the future.

What I meant by my OP was that I've already looked at all of the data collected by the "professionals" and am interested in a live demo as well. Of course I've taken into account the standardized benchmarks.

http://www.eicar.org/anti_virus_test_file.htm

That is the only test file that I know of offhand-

I would in the past say do a search for bonzi buddy-- not really a virus but a difficult spyware to get rid of- I would also say do a search for spyware sherrif -- not really the removal but maybe one of those links could get you infected.

http://www.eicar.org/anti_virus_test_file.htm

That is the only test file that I know of offhand-

I would in the past say do a search for bonzi buddy-- not really a virus but a difficult spyware to get rid of- I would also say do a search for spyware sherrif -- not really the removal but maybe one of those links could get you infected.

LOL Bonzi Buddy... I remember that gay little purple ape from the late 90s. As mentioned in my OP, I don't want Eicar. Already tried it, and it's not really a sufficient AV test. It will let you know if your AV engine is working, but can't demonstrate effectiveness at removing a true infection.

I'm in the process of testing antivirus software for my office. I'm deciding between two different applications, and I'd like to have some side-by-side comparisons of how well they work. I'm not interested in charts or anything like that that has already been done. I want to see for myself, a live test, of how effective each AV product is.

My users are fairly good at contracting viruses ( :p ), but I can't seem to find any! I'm using IE8 and surfing the internet without any AV software. I'm going to tons of warez & crackz sites, clicking on all the links I can find. My biggest problem is staying away from the porn, since anyone that walks around the corner will see that on my screen. I disabled images for IE to avoid this, but that probably also hindered my ability to get infected.

I already tried the Eicar test virus, but this is not a substantial test as far as I'm concerned. I want to get (a lot) of real viruses. Does anyone know of a sample I can get? If you have a known bad link, post it up!

The most virus alerts I've ever gotten were torrent finds looking for "NERO" burning software...practically EVERY SINGLE ONE! I finally bought one, since no one could post a good/working copy.

No insult to you, but I simply cannot fathom how on earth you feel a live demonstration would somehow sway your choice in picking an AV. So the AV detects it? So what, that's like 1 out of a billion viruses. Perhaps you should leave the AV testing to those that actually know what they're doing (presumably they don't need to go around on tech sites asking for viruses to compile their tests...) and perhaps you might try a nicer attitude also.

Unless of course, this is all a ruse and you actually just want a virus so you can infect somebody that's ****ed you off (wouldn't be the first time it's happened)

No insult to you, but I simply cannot fathom how on earth you feel a live demonstration would somehow sway your choice in picking an AV. So the AV detects it? So what, that's like 1 out of a billion viruses. Perhaps you should leave the AV testing to those that actually know what they're doing (presumably they don't need to go around on tech sites asking for viruses to compile their tests...) and perhaps you might try a nicer attitude also.

Unless of course, this is all a ruse and you actually just want a virus so you can infect somebody that's ****ed you off (wouldn't be the first time it's happened)

I don't appreciate the accusation. I tend to have a short attitude with those that post dumbass responses without reading posts (not referring to you, but see above). I choose to test this way because that's what I want. If you don't want to help, then fine. And when you say "leave the testing to those that know what they're doing", I know what I'm doing. I know that I clean viruses off of machines (far) too often, and I know an effective removal when I see it (Malwarebytes, for example, in many cases). I'd like to see this for myself with one of the AV apps I'm testing. Is that OK with you?

I don't appreciate the accusation. I tend to have a short attitude with those that post dumbass responses without reading posts (not referring to you, but see above). I choose to test this way because that's what I want. If you don't want to help, then fine. And when you say "leave the testing to those that know what they're doing", I know what I'm doing. I know that I clean viruses off of machines (far) too often, and I know an effective removal when I see it (Malwarebytes, for example, in many cases). I'd like to see this for myself with one of the AV apps I'm testing. Is that OK with you?

By "know what I'm doing" I assume you mean when the box comes up that asks whether you want to delete the virus or not you know to press "yes"? Seriously, in comparison to the companies out there that dedicate their entire business model to the study of real viruses, their patterns, and anti-virus software heuristics, I'd say your own 'test' is pretty fruitless - if you're serious about protecting your corporate environment, you'll forget endangering it more by downloading viruses on it, and instead do some in-depth study of existing published material on which corporate anti virus solutions work the best.

here is what I would do, start going to torrent sites and clicking on ads. there are plenty of viruses there. you want more go to off the wall porn sites, if they don't have anything on their websites click on the ads. finally go to warez sites and password crack sites and click on the ads there. it is almost ridiculous how easy this stuff is to get on your computer when you try to get stuff for free/work around licensing.

you can also try downloading torrents, I would say about 50-70% are loaded with viruses/malware.

By "know what I'm doing" I assume you mean when the box comes up that asks whether you want to delete the virus or not you know to press "yes"? Seriously, in comparison to the companies out there that dedicate their entire business model to the study of real viruses, their patterns, and anti-virus software heuristics, I'd say your own 'test' is pretty fruitless - if you're serious about protecting your corporate environment, you'll forget endangering it more by downloading viruses on it, and instead do some in-depth study of existing published material on which corporate anti virus solutions work the best.

While I agree somewhat, reading can only go so far. I don't know any IT admin who has purchased the licenses for a domain/workgroup/massive networrk to an av product without actually trying it first. There is nothing wrong with throwing a couple viruses/malware at them in a sandbox and seeing how they react and behave. If you even take it from an end user perspective, seeing how they react to these programs and viruses could be valuable information. I'd almost call someone an incompetent/lazy admin if they didn't do this.

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

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • The quantum search for Time's origin had an equally mind-boggling conclusion by Sayan Sen Image by Steve Johnson via Pexels A theoretical study from researchers at the University of Surrey suggested that the direction of time may not be fundamentally fixed in certain quantum systems. The work, published in Scientific Reports, examined how the “arrow of time” could emerge from microscopic physics and found that time-reversal symmetry can remain intact even in models used to describe processes such as energy loss and thermalisation. The arrow of time refers to the observed one-way direction from past to future in everyday life. In macroscopic processes, this is easy to see. Spilled milk spreads across a table and does not gather back into a glass, and heat flows from hotter objects to colder ones. These processes shape the common sense idea that time moves in a single direction. However, at the level of fundamental physics, many equations do not prefer a direction of time. Time-reversal symmetry means that the same physical laws can describe a system whether time moves forward or backward. This has made it difficult to explain why irreversible behaviour appears in the large-scale world even when the underlying rules do not require it. Dr Andrea Rocco, Associate Professor in Physics and Mathematical Biology at the University of Surrey, described this contrast: "One way to explain this is when you look at a process like spilt milk spreading across a table, it's clear that time is moving forward. But if you were to play that in reverse, like a movie, you'd immediately know something was wrong – it would be hard to believe milk could just gather back into a glass. However, there are processes, such as the motion of a pendulum, that look just as believable in reverse. The puzzle is that, at the most fundamental level, the laws of physics resemble the pendulum; they do not account for irreversible processes. Our findings suggest that while our common experience tells us that time only moves one way, we are just unaware that the opposite direction would have been equally possible." The study focused on open quantum systems, which are quantum systems that interact with a surrounding environment. This environment, often described as a heat bath, can exchange energy and information with the system. The researchers used this framework to study how a direction of time might appear even when the underlying physics does not enforce one. A key part of the analysis involved the Markov approximation. This is a simplification used in many models where the system is assumed not to retain memory of its past states. The idea is that changes depend only on the current state, not on earlier history. This is commonly used when studying thermalisation, which is the process where a system settles into equilibrium with its environment. The study also used concepts such as master equations, including the Lindblad and Pauli equations, which describe how probabilities of different quantum states change over time. Another related model discussed was quantum Brownian motion, which describes the random-like movement of a quantum particle interacting continuously with its environment. In these descriptions, a “memory kernel” can appear, which is a mathematical term that accounts for how past states influence current behaviour. The researchers found that applying the Markov approximation did not break time-reversal symmetry. Even when the system interacted with an effectively infinite heat bath, the resulting equations of motion remained symmetric in time. This meant that the same mathematical description could, in principle, run forward or backward in time without contradiction. The study further showed that standard frameworks used in open quantum systems, including quantum Brownian motion and master equations like the Lindblad and Pauli forms, could be written in a time-symmetric way. These equations are typically used to describe processes that look irreversible, such as dissipation and thermalisation, but the results suggested they can also be interpreted as allowing evolution in both time directions. Thomas Guff, Research Fellow in Quantum Thermodynamics, said: "The surprising part of this project was that even after making the standard simplifying assumption to our equations describing open quantum systems, the equations still behaved the same way whether the system was moving forwards or backwards in time. When we carefully worked through the maths, we found that this behaviour had to be the case because a key part of the equation, the "memory kernel," is symmetrical in time. We also found a small but important detail which is usually overlooked – a time discontinuous factor emerged that kept the time-symmetry property intact. It’s unusual to see such a mathematical mechanism in a physics equation because it's not continuous, and it was very surprising to see it appear so naturally." The researchers also noted that deriving a one-way arrow of time from time-reversal symmetric microscopic dynamics remains an open problem across fields such as thermodynamics, statistical mechanics, particle physics, and cosmology. Their results suggested that some standard descriptions of irreversible behaviour in open quantum systems may be better understood using a time-symmetric formulation of Markovianity. According to the study, processes such as thermalisation, which are usually treated as irreversible, could in theory be described in a way that allows evolution in either time direction under the same rules. This does not imply that time reversal occurs in everyday life, but rather that the underlying equations do not strictly enforce a single direction. Overall, the findings suggested that the perceived direction of time may emerge from how physical systems are modelled and approximated, rather than from a fundamental asymmetry in the laws themselves. The researchers noted that this perspective could have implications for ongoing work in quantum mechanics, thermodynamics, and cosmology on the origin of time’s arrow. Source: University of Surrey, Nature This article was generated with some help from AI and reviewed by an editor. Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, this material is used for the purpose of news reporting. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing
    • A bit premature... 100% Marketing. Bizarre.
    • A $300 price hike is insane! No one is going to want to pay that much!
    • Since the 1st one flopped, there is really no reason to make another one. It's just losing money left and right.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Reacting Well
      BizSAR earned a badge
      Reacting Well
    • First Post
      AndreaB earned a badge
      First Post
    • Week One Done
      Huge Trailer earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Week One Done
      Classifyskilleducation earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • One Month Later
      eurospharma62 earned a badge
      One Month Later
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      581
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      182
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      75
    4. 4
      Michael Scrip
      73
    5. 5
      neufuse
      64
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!