Tweak Your Desktop Customize Windows with Pitaschio Where to go when you’re bored Clean Your Keyboard and Mouse Windows 7 Release Date
Collapsed Today Collapsed CyberNotes
Collapsed Yesterday

Best Antivirus (Retrospective Tests)

December 7th, 2007
10 Comments Written by Ryan


ESET Superman Just yesterday we wrote about how some of the best antivirus apps were having troubles passing the VB100 test. In that scenario the apps were only tested against viruses that had already been released to the wild. That’s the most basic of all tests since the antivirus apps just have to look at the virus signatures to see if it matches something in their database, but that only tells one side of the story.

Another important aspect of finding the best antivirus program is how well it can detect those viruses that have yet to be created. I mean face it, several hours pass before even the best antivirus companies update their virus definitions, and in that period of time you are susceptible to fresh attacks.

That’s where retrospective testing comes into play. As I’ve said before this puts the heuristic engine to the test by using an old version of the antivirus software’s database against some of the most recent viruses. For example, I would use an antivirus application that was last updated October 15th, but I would only scan for viruses that were created after October 15th so that the software knows nothing about the existence of the viruses.

The last time I wrote about this test in June 2007 NOD32 took home the gold medal, and they did it yet again. To determine the most highly ranked apps they look at both the percentage of detection versus how many false positives there were. False positives play an important role because any antivirus can be overprotective and flag things that “might” be suspicious, but in the end it will just be annoying for the user.

So how did the programs fair this time around? I’ve created two different lists, the first of which is sorted purely based upon what percentage of viruses it detected. The next list is sorted based upon the rating given by AV-Comparitives.org, which takes into account the number of false positives.

Note: The antivirus applications were tested against more than 25,000 viruses.


Best Antivirus (Detection Rate)

  • AntiVir PE Premium (81% with many false positives)
  • NOD32 (71% with no false positives)
  • TrustPort (56% with many false positives)
  • BitDefender Pro (44% with many false positives)
  • Kasperksy (40% with few false positives)
  • Dr. Web (39% with many false positives)
  • AntiVirusKit (39% with few false positives)
  • Avast! Professional (37% with few false positives)
  • Norton (35% with very few false positives)
  • Microsoft OneCare (35% with few false positives)
  • McAfee (34% with few false positives)
  • Norman (33% with few false positives)
  • F-Prot (33% with many false positives)
  • AVG Anti-Malware (25% with few false positives)
  • F-Secure (14% with very few false positives)
  • eScan (14% with very few false positives)
  • FortiClient (3% with few false positives)

Best Antivirus (Detection Rate & False Positives)

Note: Listed from best to worse.

Advanced+:

  • NOD32 (71% with no false positives)

    ESET - Download NOD32 Here!
  • Kasperksy (40% with few false positives)

Advanced:

  • AntiVirusKit (39% with few false positives)
  • Avast! Professional (37% with few false positives)
  • Norton (35% with very few false positives)
  • Microsoft OneCare (35% with few false positives)
  • McAfee (34% with few false positives)
  • Norman (33% with few false positives)
  • AVG Anti-Malware (25% with few false positives)

Standard:

  • AntiVir PE Premium (81% with many false positives)
  • TrustPort (56% with many false positives)
  • BitDefender Pro (44% with many false positives)
  • Dr. Web (39% with many false positives)
  • F-Prot (33% with many false positives)
  • F-Secure (14% with very few false positives)
  • eScan (14% with very few false positives)

RSS Icon Enjoyed the post? Subscribe to our feed to get a daily dose of CyberNet!

Tags: Software, , ,

Previous ArticleNext Article
 

Related Posts:


10 Unread Comment Tracking CyberMark This Article
RSS Icon
10

  1. Avatar

    Yet again NOD32 shines through. Users of all other anti-virus programs, this is your wake up call.

  2. Avatar

    Wow F-Secure really failed that.

    :cry:

  3. Avatar
    CoryC wrote:
    Yet again NOD32 shines through. Users of all other anti-virus programs, this is your wake up call.

    Which is why I’m using NOD32 :)

  4. Avatar

    Another thing I love about NOD32 is that it does everything with only two processes. It’s a nice change from other’s that use a separate one for scheduling, another one for the engine, another one for the gui.. etc. etc

  5. Avatar

    AV-Comparatives is pretty protective of their test results:

    “Please link ONLY to our main site http://www.av-comparatives.org and not to the other subpages.
    It’s forbidden to use/provide our test results/documents on other sites without our permission.
    If you find anything on other sites, please inform the forum/site admin to remove it.”

    I don’t know if they have any basis for legal action, but I can understand them being concerned about getting the traffic for their own hard work.

  6. Avatar

    It will be interesting how these all these products do in the coming year as far as sales. It seem to me lately that the biggest advertiser is the one that gets the most sales.
    It dosent matter how good a product it is in most cases.

  7. Avatar
    Joe Ledvina wrote:
    I don’t know if they have any basis for legal action, but I can understand them being concerned about getting the traffic for their own hard work.

    If they post it in the public domain it is hard for them to restrict it though. It’s not like they can copyright their results, or prevent where people link to. We do link to the homepage, but they offer no easy way to point users to the test results, which I find to be stupid. I don’t want to try and explain to our readers how to go to their site and find the test results.

    Doug Woodall wrote:
    It will be interesting how these all these products do in the coming year as far as sales. It seem to me lately that the biggest advertiser is the one that gets the most sales.
    It dosent matter how good a product it is in most cases.

    That will probably always be the case. Since companies like McAfee and Norton are so big they are able to contract computer manufacturers to put their software on new computers. Unfortunately this results in many people running expired antivirus definitions after 6 months or a year.

    CoryC wrote:
    Yet again NOD32 shines through. Users of all other anti-virus programs, this is your wake up call.

    Yeah, this was a little reassurance to justify my recent purchase of the ESET Smart Security.

  8. Avatar

    Its old but the tests are much realistic

    [url]http://virus.gr/portal/en/node/28[/url]

    well it’s european website

  9. Avatar

    How are old tests any better than these new ones? These tests have been done very professionally with lots of viruses and programs tested. Glad to see that NOD came out on top - I’ve always liked the fact that their programs are simple, not overly-protective and don’t utterly slow down a PC (as well as being easy to install, areas where McAffee and Norton fail totally).

  10. Avatar
    Inferno_str1ke wrote:
    not overly-protective and don’t utterly slow down a PC (as well as being easy to install, areas where McAffee and Norton fail totally).

    Amen to that! Norton and McAffee have almost driven me to insanity with how difficult they can be to completely remove from new computers.

:mrgreen: :| :twisted: :arrow: 8O :) :? 8) :evil: :D :idea: :oops: :P :roll: ;) :cry: :o :lol: :x :( :!: :?:

Note: All links posted in comments will automatically be hyperlinked.

↓ Expand Text Area  or  Decrease Text Area ↑

 Find out how to track new comments!


 

  1. There aren't any trackbacks or pings yet. You can be the first by using this trackback URL.