how-to block ads
|
|
Share Topic
 |
 |
|
|
|
IBK
join:2003-06-20
Austria | reply to Wai_Wai
Re: My Anti-virus Program Comparison Analysis I don't agree with some of your conclusions, but as those are your opinions, I have no influence on them  .
I do not agree with how you used the data of my comparative, as the labels ITW=known virus and ZOO=unknown virus are wrong. And btw, 0,5 / 2 is 0,25 and not 0,33
GeCAD and not GeACD (mistypo)
You should also write the date of the various tests. AV results changes constantly, so old tests are fastly outdated. For example, the tests of aVTC are IMO very good and interesting, but they are very old and outdated, so no longer of big interest, as the AV products improved much in the last 2 years.
BTW: some more resources and links that are maybe of interest for you can be found on the forum of my website (www.av-comparatives.org/forum).
Thx for listing also my tests in your posts  | | |
|
Wai_WaiA Guy Who Enjoys Thumb-Up
join:2004-07-30
1 edit | said by IBK:I don't agree with some of your conclusions, but as those are your opinions, I have no influence on them . I do not agree with how you used the data of my comparative, as the labels ITW=known virus and ZOO=unknown virus are wrong. And btw, 0,5 / 2 is 0,25 and not 0,33 GeCAD and not GeACD (mistypo) You should also write the date of the various tests. AV results changes constantly, so old tests are fastly outdated. For example, the tests of aVTC are IMO very good and interesting, but they are very old and outdated, so no longer of big interest, as the AV products improved much in the last 2 years. BTW: some more resources and links that are maybe of interest for you can be found on the forum of my website (www.av-comparatives.org/forum). Thx for listing also my tests in your posts Thanks for your suggestion.
AV-test org is currently carrying out its latest research. This organization makes good research, so I am very eager for their report. But you know, good and detailed reports need time, so they must be outdated.
My logic is, if a program is good in its previous year (eg 2003), it is going to be good normally (although it isn't always true). So hopefully McAfee and Kaspersky AVP will not turn out performing very wrong this year.
Most of the detailed tests are 1-2 year old unfortunately, and I can't find any new reports (eg 2004) which is thorough except AV-comparative.org. Unfortunately its reports are not as detailed as others.
There're a lot of up-to-date reports but brief. But I can't find a good and comprehensive one which is up-to-date. But I understand why. | |
Wai_WaiA Guy Who Enjoys Thumb-Up
join:2004-07-30
1 edit | reply to IBK
quote:
I do not agree with how you used the data of my comparative, as the labels ITW=known virus and ZOO=unknown virus are wrong. And btw, 0,5 / 2 is 0,25 and not 0,33
GeCAD and not GeACD (mistypo)
Yes, true.
ITW and ZOO don't simply means known and unknown virus.
But I can't explain much in the label.
I intended to make a comment label and people could read the details. However it cannot be shown if I simply snapshot it. Hmm...
0.33 is not a mistake.
It's because not all anti-virus programs finish all 4 tests at AV-comparative. That's why you can see this figure.
And all programs are passed indeed. But when comparing with others, they look bad.
In fact I felt a bit frustrated after I had created my report.
I think it is not good to upload the excel file because some people may not wish to download them (because it may contain virus or malware etc.) So I decided to snapshot them.
The table seems to be simple, but that costs me 1 day to prepare this table. I slept late at 4:00am for this reason, and had to wake up early on the next day... exhausted...
The table is far from perfect. I should have explained more about the table. But I just made it in a rush. And since I have other work and projects to handle, I may not be able to explain all of them. I do wish if I had 48 hours a day and so I could do more.
quote:
You should also write the date of the various tests. AV results changes constantly, so old tests are fastly outdated. For example, the tests of aVTC are IMO very good and interesting, but they are very old and outdated, so no longer of big interest, as the AV products improved much in the last 2 years.
Yes, this is a good suggestion.
I list the years of the reports here:
AV-comparative: 2004
AV-test: 2002, 2001
Virus Centre: 2003, 2002
quote:
BTW: some more resources and links that are maybe of interest for you can be found on the forum of my website (www.av-comparatives.org/forum).
Thx for listing also my tests in your posts
From what you say, are you one of the person who perform the test?
If so, I would like to thank you for your excellent work. And it is the only website I can find the latest reports. Thanks
I would like if you can review F-Secure as well. | |
Wai_WaiA Guy Who Enjoys Thumb-Up
join:2004-07-30 | reply to IBK
Dear IBK,
I would like to thank you for your suggestions.
I have improved my comparison analysis based on your suggestions.
Thanks a lot.
If you have any comments or questions, please ask/tell me. | |
|
