Jon Posted July 14, 2003 Share Posted July 14, 2003 As usual, incredably in depth testing, proving that the people bashing McAfee on neowin *really* dont know what they are talking about. I was actually quite suprised to see how low the tested version of NAV rated! http://agn-www.informatik.uni-hamburg.de/vtc/ (http://agn-www.informatik.uni-hamburg.de/vtc/en0304.htm) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Posted July 14, 2003 Author Share Posted July 14, 2003 These are the results: (scn=NAI) ************************************************************ "Perfect" Windows-XP AntiVirus product: =NONE= (20 points) "Excellent" Windows-XP products: 1st place: SCN (18 points) 2nd place: AVP,FSE (13 points) 4th place: NAV (11 points) 5th place: DRW (10 points) 6th place: INO ( 9 points) 7th place: RAV ( 8 points) 8th place: BDF,CMD,NVC ( 6 points) ************************************************************ "Perfect" Windows-XP AntiMalware product:=NONE= (26 points) "Excellent" Windows-XP AntiMalware product: 1st place: SCN (22 points) 2nd place: AVP,FSE (17 points) 4th place: NAV (13 points) 5th place: DRW (11 points) 6th place: INO (10 points) 7th place: RAV ( 9 points) 8th place: BDF,CMD,NVC ( 7 points) ************************************************************ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MxxCon Posted July 14, 2003 Share Posted July 14, 2003 good read however there are a few very important things missing from this test they only tested virus detection, not disinfection. detecting a virus is half way there.. they only tested on-demand scanning. while on-demand scanning is very important, real-time protection is also important. some AV have unacceptable performance hit on systems. in some cases it can take 30+sec to run a program from an archive or that's packed with UPX or ASPack. they gave equal importance to ITW and zoo, which i don't see as so crucial. yes, it is important to detect all viruses, but lowering the score becuase AV did not detect some obscure proof-of-contept code is not real world "fair". they did not publish test performance times. yes, they test bed is very specialized, it's still good to see how AV handle such situations. pretty much all that test shows is detection capabilities of those AV, and McAfee came out on top. however ease of use, performance, quckness of updates, company policy are also important, and that test does not cover it. failure in any of those categories can make a given AV totally undesirable, despite it's excelent detection engine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Posted July 14, 2003 Author Share Posted July 14, 2003 Yes, this test was purely regarding the detection engine, so for things like mail gateway protection its the perfect set of results (exactly what I'm interested in ;) ), where we dont care about ease of updates, because we'll just script it no matter how hard, and we dont care how hard it is to use, because we are payed to learn. We simply care that it works as well as possible! Its certainly not a test for home users who need pretty GUI's though :) I would also argue that detection is 90% of the task, but I've just had a crap load of system-out's assigned to me so better start working! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PCKing Posted July 14, 2003 Share Posted July 14, 2003 the best antivirus is common sense... I use McAfee 7.0 w/ Firewall... the scanner hasnt found anything yet but the Firewall seems to work really well. It blocks everything unless I allow it. Another benefit is that this software is really easy to use... which is important because if it isnt set up properly its almost useless to have in the first place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts