dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
10927
share rss forum feed

Kobra007

join:2004-06-15
Longwood, FL

1 recommendation

Kobra's Antivirus SHOWDOWN results.

Kobra's 6-14-04 AV Test.

Testbed consisted of 321 Viruses, Trojans and Worms, all for the Windows32 environment, and all reasonably new samples. I don't have any data on whether some of these are zoo, or ITW, but they are all real threats I feel someone is likely to encounter, since I got them off the internet (and i've verified they are real as each sample must be detected by at least 4 AV's for me to consider it). All scanners were installed on a clean system, without any traces of other anti-virus softwares - between each test the system and directories were cleaned, and the registry was sweeped. Each AV product was treated with a double-reboot, one before, and one after installation. Each scanner was set at its highest possible settings, and was triple checked for proper options and configuration. Most products were the full registered version when possible, others were fully functional unrestricted trials. All products were tested with the current version as of 6-14-04, and the latest definitions for that date. Each product was run through the test set a minimum of 3 times to establish proper settings and reliability, the only product to exhibit some variance on this was F-Secure, which had one scan come up less than the other two without any settings changes indicating a possible stability issue.

The final standings:

1) eXtendia AVK
2) McAfee VirusScan 8.0
3) F-Secure
4) Kaspersky 5.0
5) GData AVK
6) RAV + Norton (2 way tie)
7) Dr.Web
8) CommandAV + F-Prot + BitDefender (3 Way Tie)
9) ETrust
10) Trend
11) Panda
12) Avast! Pro
13) KingSoft
14) NOD32
15) AVG Pro
16) AntiVIR
17) ClamWIN
18) UNA
19) Norman
20) Solo
21) Proland
22) Sophos
23) Hauri
24) CAT Quickheal
25) Ikarus

Heuristics seemed to play some of a roll in this test, as no AV had every virus in my test in their definitions, and products with stronger heuristics were able to hold their position towards the top of the test. Double/Multi engined products put up strong showings as well, proving to me that the redundacy method works, and I think more AV companies should considering double-engines. The strongest heurisitical AV I noticed was F-Prot/Command, picking up only 247 samples with definitions but they were able to power through 67 additional hits on "Possible Virus" indicators - very strong! Norton with BloodHound activated had 30 Heuristical pickups, and DrWeb rounded up the pack with 20 heuristical pickups. eXtendia AVK grabs the number one slot with double engine scanning, anything the KAV engine missed, the RAV engine picked up with great redundancy on the double engine/definition system. McAfee actually missed only 2 samples with its definitions, but picked those 2 up as "Suspicious File", and therefore, scores nearly perfect as well.

The biggest dissapointments for me were Norman and Nod32. Even with Advanced-Heuristics enabled, NOD32 failed to pick up a large portion of the samples. Norman, while finding some of the toughest samples, managed to completely miss a large portion of them! Showing that their sandbox-emulation system has great potetential, but its far from complete.

Actual test numbers were:

Total Samples/Found Samples (321 total possible) + Number Missed + Detection Percentage

1) eXtendia AVK - 321/321 0 Missed - 100%
2) McAfee VirusScan 8.0 - 319/321 + 2 (2 found as joke programs - heuristically) - 100%
3) F-Secure - 319/321 2 Missed - 99.37%
4) Kaspersky 5.0 - 318/321 3 Missed - 99.06%
5) GData AVK - 317/321 4 Missed - 98.75%
6) RAV + Norton (2 way tie) - 315/321 6 Missed - 98.13%
7) Dr.Web - 310/321 11 Missed - 96.57%
8) CommandAV + F-Prot + BitDefender (3 Way Tie) - 309/321 12 Missed - 96.26%
9) ETrust - 301/321 20 Missed - 93.76%
10) Trend - 300/321 21 Missed - 93.45%
11) Panda - 298/321 23 Missed - 92.83%
12) Avast! Pro - 292/321 29 Missed - 90.96%
13) KingSoft - 288/321 33 Missed - 89.71%
14) NOD32 - 285/321 36 Missed (results identical with or without advanced heuristics) - 88.78%
15) AVG Pro - 275/321 46 Missed - 85.66%
16) AntiVIR - 268/321 53 Missed - 83.48%
17) ClamWIN - 247/321 74 Missed - 76.94%
18) UNA - 222/321 99 Missed - 69.15%
19) Norman - 215/321 106 Missed - 66.97%
20) Solo - 182/321 139 Missed - 56.69%
21) Proland - 73/321 248 Missed - 22.74%
22) Sophos - 50/321 271 Missed - 15.57%
23) Hauri - 49/321 272 Missed - 15.26%
24) CAT Quickheal - 21/321 300 Missed - 6%
25) Ikarus - Crashed on first virus. - 0%

Interesting also to note, is the detection level of the US AVK version with KAV+RAV engines was higher than the German version with KAV+BitDefender engines. Several vendors have free versions of their for purchase AV's, we didn't test the free versions, as it would serve no purpose for this test, but based on the results, none of the free versions would have been very impressive anyway. The term "Heuristics" seems like it should be taken very liberally, as some products that claim to be loaded with Heuristics scored miserably on items they clearly didn't have definitions for. Scanning speed was not measured, as it was totally irrelevant to my testing, and on-access scanners were not tested, as it would have been too time consuming, but considering most products have similar on-access engines as on-demand, and use the same database, results most likely, would be very similar.

Cut through the hype, cut through the marketing schemes, this was a real test, with real samples, and none of these samples were provided to the antivirus software vendors in advance. This is real world, and these are likely badguys you'll encounter, since I got them in my real encounters, and all were aquired on the internet in daily activities which anyone out there might be involved in. (Installing shareware, filesharing, surfing, etc). Keep in mind that with ITW tests the AV vendors have full disclosure of what they will be tested on in advance, not so here, so heuristics and real detection algorithms will play a big part, as well as the depth and scope of their definition database.

Honestly, I was *HOPING* to be surprised by a ton of things in this test, and really all I did was re-enforce many of the other testing sites on their results, mine are very close to theres, which actually shocked me, because i'm sure my samples aren't the same. This tells me overall, I think this might be a great guage of these products.

Also, I wanted to test the multi-engined products against the others, since most testers seem to not like testing them. Strong showings by F-Secure, and the AVK' brothers proved this idea works, and works incredibly well. The strenght of the KAV engine cannot be denied as well, since all but one of the top 5 products use the KAV engine. I forgot to add, one product I tested was called V-Catch, and turned out to be a trojan downloader and spyware application masking as a AV product.. LOL! Thankfully it was the last product I tested, and I just reformatted, I think it downloaded 30 trojans to my system. 8-)

I did NOT test any Dos viruses, as this is completely retarded to test these in a windows based environment, it tells us nothing. I cannot understand why Clementi bothers to test them, all they do is skew his test results badly. For example on his test, NOD32 scored 95.51%, but without DOS or other OS samples, NOD32 scored only 87.71%. Which amazingly enough, is within 1% variance of *MY* results. So i'm oblivious as to why he skews his own results for no real purpose? Who the hell cares what a product scores on DOS?!?



StraitShoot
Who Loves Ya Baby? - Theo Kojak
Premium
join:2003-02-08
Clinton, MA
kudos:1

said by Kobra007:
Kobra's 6-14-04 AV Test.

Testbed consisted of 321 Viruses, Trojans and Worms, all for the Windows32 environment, and all reasonably new samples.
Would you be able to identify the samples you used? How were they stored? I probably have most of them LOL...
said by Kobra007:

All scanners were installed on a clean system, without any traces of other anti-virus softwares - between each test the system and directories were cleaned, and the registry was sweeped.
Probably the BEST way to have a clean system is to reclone your drive to a state before any AV software is installed.. That's what I do...

said by Kobra007:

The biggest dissapointments for me were Norman and Nod32.
Here We Go Again! LOL...I am going to make a movie called "The Boys from Slovakia..." LOL

said by Kobra007:

Even with Advanced-Heuristics enabled, NOD32 failed to pick up a large portion of the samples.
Are you talking about Paolo Monti's AH Shell extension or are you talking about the "deep" heuristics that come with regular NOD32..

said by Kobra007:

Interesting also to note, is the detection level of the US AVK version with KAV+RAV engines was higher than the German version with KAV+BitDefender engines.
Presumedly due to RAV...

said by Kobra007:

Cut through the hype, cut through the marketing schemes, this was a real test, with real samples, and none of these samples were provided to the antivirus software vendors in advance. This is real world, and these are likely badguys you'll encounter, since I got them in my real encounters, and all were aquired on the internet in daily activities which anyone out there might be involved in. (Installing shareware, filesharing, surfing, etc). Keep in mind that with ITW tests the AV vendors have full disclosure of what they will be tested on in advance, not so here, so heuristics and real detection algorithms will play a big part, as well as the depth and scope of their definition database..
There are going to be a lot of folks who will begin disagreeing with this statement.. Me? I need to see what the samples were..

But like you said, your test is only confirming what every other test EXCEPT Virus Bulletin is saying... Whoops! LOL
--
"In Every Revolution, There's One Man ... With a Vision!


FishPants
The Art Of Pants
Premium
join:2001-11-19
Canada Eh?
reply to Kobra007

I applaud you for your efforts! Good information there. This is the first time that I have heard of Extendia AVK; has it been around awhile? Seems awfully cheap ($29.95 gets you the double engine scan + a crapload of other apps like firewall etc).. I know you were out to test AV response, but I would like your personal opinion on the extendia line of products (or anyone else's for that matter) as I may make the switch from resource pig norton to extendia.
--
Hail to the Nipple-Titan.



StraitShoot
Who Loves Ya Baby? - Theo Kojak
Premium
join:2003-02-08
Clinton, MA
kudos:1

FYI, any Walmart in my area is selling Defender Pro AV, which is a repackaged KAV Lite, for $10!
--
"In Every Revolution, There's One Man ... With a Vision!


BlackSpider

join:2003-03-07
UK
reply to Kobra007

Kobra

can you differentiate between the malware samples e.g. detection rates for viruses only, trojans etc for the AV programs tested. I am particularly interested in trojan detection by these programs.

I was surprised when you stated that F-Prot/Command looked to give the best heuristics, as I thought Dr Web and NOD were the big boys here.

Regards Extendia, no trial versions and no support by e-mail unless you buy and register the software first.

Expand your moderator at work


markwp2001
Spreadhead
Premium
join:2002-05-25
Long Beach, MS
reply to Kobra007

Re: Kobra's Antivirus SHOWDOWN results.

"(and i've verified they are real as each sample must be detected by at least 4 AV's for me to consider it)."

Could you explain this part of your selection process? Do you use 4 specific AV's to pick the samples; if so, which ones?
--
Widespread Panic - when only the best will do ...

Expand your moderator at work


MapleLeaf
Premium
join:2001-09-04
Burnaby, BC
reply to Kobra007

Re: Kobra's Antivirus SHOWDOWN results.

Welcome to BBR in general and to one of it's craziest corners in particular, Kobra007 See Profile . Which one of KAV bases did you choose for your test? What are detection rates for trojans by the products you tested?
--
Three hats to choose from: white, black and tinfoil

Expand your moderator at work

dos9

join:2004-01-23
reply to Kobra007

Re: Kobra's Antivirus SHOWDOWN results.

I don't trust amateur testing. You don't even know if the viruses used for testing are ITW or zoo or whatever. The results are completely meaningless.



Keizer
I'M Your Huckleberry
Premium,MVM
join:2003-01-20
reply to Anon

said by StraitShoot:

Question? Is the AV the two engine version or just the KAV engine?

»www.extendia.com/SecuritySuite.htm

Acoording to your link, the full blown security suite has the "double engine".

Keizer
Expand your moderator at work


Keizer
I'M Your Huckleberry
Premium,MVM
join:2003-01-20

1 edit
reply to dos9

Re: Kobra's Antivirus SHOWDOWN results.

said by dos9:
I don't trust amateur testing. You don't even know if the viruses used for testing are ITW or zoo or whatever. The results are completely meaningless.

Maybe Kobra should have put on one of those white doctor robes when he did the test, to make it more proffessional??

Keizer


Khaine

join:2003-03-03
Australia
reply to Kobra007

Nice review Kobra, perhaps to silence the critics you could post the list of malware samples you used and the definitions of each AV (if possible).

Thanks



Randy Bell
Premium
join:2002-02-24
Santa Clara, CA

2 edits
reply to Anon

said by Keizer:
And this is something Norton missed before?
That sounds like spyware -- only NAV 2004 detects expanded threats so if he had 2003, it wouldn't detect it.

Edit: r_u_stuck2 See Profile provided this writeup, it is adware/spyware - »www.pchell.com/support/twaintec.shtml
--
"But now abide faith, hope, love, these three; but the greatest of these is love." (1 Cor. 13:13)


Keizer
I'M Your Huckleberry
Premium,MVM
join:2003-01-20

said by Randy Bell:

Edit: r_u_stuck2 See Profile provided this writeup, it is adware/spyware - »www.pchell.com/support/twaintec.shtml

Good! Thats re-assuring to hear.

Keizer

Kobra007

join:2004-06-15
Longwood, FL

1 edit

1 recommendation

reply to Kobra007

Greetings folks. There have been some updates to the test results. I've re-tested a few products with different switches and settings on the prodding of the users of those products.

* CAT Quickheal was retested, and yielded the same results, the developer is investigating.

* Avast was retested with different command line switches, and improved to 299 Detections. Bumping Panda down one notch.

* Kaspersky5.0 was re-tested with "Extended Database" downloaded and in place, and was upgraded with only 1 miss.

*Ahn V3 Pro was requested to be tested, I tested it, and it detected only 109 out of the 321 samples for a 33.95% rating. (although the options and interface rocked. Heh)

1) eXtendia AVK - 321/321 0 Missed - 100%
2) Kaspersky 5.0 - 320/321 1 Missed - 99.70% (with Extended Database ON)
2) McAfee VirusScan 8.0 - 319/321 + 2 (2 found as joke programs - heuristically) - 99%
3) F-Secure - 319/321 2 Missed - 99.37%
4) GData AVK - 317/321 4 Missed - 98.75%
5) RAV + Norton (2 way tie) - 315/321 6 Missed - 98.13%
6) Dr.Web - 310/321 11 Missed - 96.57%
7) CommandAV + F-Prot + BitDefender (3 Way Tie) - 309/321 12 Missed - 96.26%
8) ETrust - 301/321 20 Missed - 93.76%
9) Trend - 300/321 21 Missed - 93.45%
10) Avast! Pro - 299/321 22 Missed - 93.14%
11) Panda - 298/321 23 Missed - 92.83%
12) KingSoft - 288/321 33 Missed - 89.71%
13) NOD32 - 285/321 36 Missed (results identical with or without advanced heuristics) - 88.78%
14) AVG Pro - 275/321 46 Missed - 85.66%
15) AntiVIR - 268/321 53 Missed - 83.48%
16) ClamWIN - 247/321 74 Missed - 76.94%
17) UNA - 222/321 99 Missed - 69.15%
18) Norman - 215/321 106 Missed - 66.97%
19) Solo - 182/321 139 Missed - 56.69%
20) V3 Pro - 109/321 212 Missed - 33.95%
21) Proland - 73/321 248 Missed - 22.74%
22) Sophos - 50/321 271 Missed - 15.57%
23) Hauri - 49/321 272 Missed - 15.26%
24) CAT Quickheal - 21/321 300 Missed - 6%
25) Ikarus - Crashed on first virus. - 0%

Ironically, since doing this test, i've checked around, and my results aren't really all that different than some of the independant test houses. What *IS* very different, are how places like Virus Bulletin can rate something like CAT Quickheal at having 90% range detection, when it can't find the most simplest bug I throw at it. Ironically, the most recent test of NOD32 scored it in the 80 percentile range, exactly where it fell in my testing.

As for eXtendia AVK, its quite a feature rich and configurable product, and probably offers the only true 100% detection ability out there. Both engines cranking away, sweeping everything, and with each engine having its own 100,000ish definition database comparing with each other, double heuristics doing comparatives.. I think its pretty safe to say, your chances of infection are zero? I've personally run into a couple of bugs that Kaspersky missed, and the RAV side of AVK picked it up. So I do believe the product works, and provides an incredible level of layered protection for its price.

Keeping in mind though, AVK does use the KAV+RAV engine, and you can run either/or in any configuration you want, so for example you could run RAV for on-access to get the speed, and run KAV+RAV Double-Mode for on-demand to get the incredible depth of scans. Also, my testing showed AVK updates directly from their sources, i've seen it update 8-10 times per day if you set it to "Hourly" in the configurations. But I will tell you this, after running NOD32 for 3 months, I installed AVK and found 5 trojans - so don't be surprised if it finds something on your box if you were running one of the other AV's.

I'd say my personal choices are KAV5.0 or AVK. I can't wait to see what KAV5-Pro looks like, its not due till September though.

Regards

PS: I don't test for a living, this was done to satisfy my OWN curiosity about which AV product would be best for me to run. I got tired of paying cash for products like Norton and NOD32 and being horribly dissappointed - and in fact being left to reformat due to infections! Also, i'm a bit sick of magazines and websites talking really lousy products. So much misleading information out there its quite annoying. Agree with my test results or not, its up to you, but its strictly done to satisfy my own curiosity, and was posted merely because I thought others might benefit.

Expand your moderator at work