11 Products fail Virus Bulletin's latest test, including Avira AntiVir

[Matthew DeCarlo]

Virus Bulletin has published the results of its October 2009 test for Windows Server 2008 SP2 32-bit. The outfit tested 26 applications this time around, 11 of which failed, including the popular Avira AntiVir Server and Sophos Anti-Virus.

In order to pass Virus Bulletin's test, the submitted products were required to detect all malware known to be "In the Wild" via both on-demand and on-access, without reporting any false positives. They were bombarded with some 3,000 unique samples of four malware types: WildList viruses, worms and bots, polymorphic viruses, and Trojans.

Although Avira and Sophos' products failed Virus Bulletin's test, they only missed one malware sample out of the thousands faced -- in order to receive a VB100 award, applications must detect 100%. That said, Avira told Ars Technica that the issue was sorted before VB's results were published.

Ars has posted a complete list of results for all products tested, which you can view after the jump.

Pass: Alwil avast!, AVG I.S. Network Edition, BitDefender Security, CA eTrust, eScan Internet Security, ESET NOD32, F-Secure Anti-Virus, G Data AntiVirus, K7 Total Security, Kaspersky Anti-Virus, McAfee VirusScan, Microsoft Forefront, Quick Heal AntiVirus Lite, Symantec Endpoint, and Trustport Antivirus 2009.

Fail: AhnLab V3Net (171 wildlist misses), Authentium Command (159 wildlist misses), Avira AntiVir Server (1 wildlist miss), Filseclab Twister (5655 wildlist misses, 1 false positive), Fortinet FortiClient (38 wildlist misses), Frisk F-PROT (159 wildlist misses), Ikarus virus.utilities (3759 wildlist misses, 4 false positives), Kingsoft I.S. 2009 Advanced (98 wildlist misses), Kingsoft I.S. 2009 Standard (2461 wildlist misses), Sophos Anti-Virus (1 wildlist miss), and VirusBuster for Servers (5 wildlist misses).

Permalink to story.

https://www.techspot.com/news/36491-11-products-fail-virus-bulletins-latest-test-including-avira-antivir.html

 

[captaincranky]

Verily, This Story Hath Brought Me Sunshine and Roses....

So basically you're saying that Avira FAILED, and AVG PASSED....? :wave:


As far as this goes; "Filseclab Twister (5655 wildlist misses, 1 false positive)", if you want malware on your PC, this seems like the way to go. Personally, I wouldn't bother installing this at all, then if the PC slowed down, I'd know my malware had successfully downloaded, and it wasn't just the load from running this AV program.

Can I put away my checkbook, and search for this on a P2P network? Not that I wouldn't be willing to pay for this, I just want to try it first.

Symantec probably markets this under a straw company, since it makes even Norton AV look good.

Do they have a free version? I'd be willing to try it that way, as long as they have a "donate" button! Don't want to take advantage of the angels of their better nature, ya know.

Does "Filseclab Twister" have an internet security package available in addition to their AV "solution". If they don't, my feeling is that they're missing a golden business opportunity to package this along with "Spyware Sheriff".

I could just go on all day about this.....

 

[Eddie_42]

yes...but could you put a coherent thought together by the end of the day?

I'll take a guess and think that the question about free would be for AVG, yes, they do have a free version. It is very toned down compared to the AVG Internet security package.

I am not surprised at the "failed" list. I haven't heard of any of those packages, and even if I saw them, the names are sketchy enough I would never install them. Yes name brand costs money, but it comes with assurances. I'll build you a car, but wouldn't you like one that has a staff of engineers designing it?

 

[captaincranky]

yes...but could you put a coherent thought together by the end of the day?

Easily, but then it's doubtful you'd be able to follow it.

Hints for the terminally dull; Only the first line of my original post applied to AVG.

Everything beyond the sentence including the product name, "Filseclab Twister" applied to that.

It is generally accepted form of style, not to continually reiterate the same word or phrase, when the relationship between the text and it's introduction has already been established.

Continually repeating the same word or very short phrase is usually best when associated with the training of animals. This, combined with the issuance of dietary enticements is the tried and proven methodology.

The dietary approach (to the training of animals) also leads us to Pavlov's observation that, "when you ring the bell, the dog salivates".

Now see, I inserted the parenthetical phrase, "to the training of animals", so that you would be able to easily follow the line of reasoning, reaffirm the original subject, and not have any necessity to refer back to the original text.

I sincerely hope that you're able to now follow this, and my previous post, as it would just destroy my whole day if you weren't.

>> txt mi if u cant <<

 

[Guest]

That "a false positive equals fail" criteria makes VB a very misleading test. Avira is well-known as a top-notch AV product and in most serious comparisons (like avcomparatives) it always ends up between the top 5.

Just by the fact that a mediocre app like CA eTrust is on the winners side and a rock solid product like Avira is on the losers side, VB tests deserve a FAIL.

 

[Guest]

I wont trust avg anymore. it detect virus but they are false alert... I will go with kaspersky or nod32

 

[captaincranky]

I wont trust avg anymore. it detect virus but they are false alert... I will go with kaspersky or nod32

Ugh, me Tarzan u NOD32.

 

[geechiesway]

I always heard nod32 was good. I switched from Antivir to NOD32 a while back, after a couple weeks my computer was running slow and I look in startup and there was a virus. Reinstalled AntiVir and cleaned my system. AntiVir is what we use in the shop to clean infected computers that usually have Symantec Endpoint, Trend Micro, or McAffee on them. Then again that could just be because they are the most popular anitviruses....just food for thought

 

[Guest]

"Avira couldn't detect only one of several thousand infected files, therefore the detection rate was not 100, but 99,99997 percent," an Avira spokesperson told Ars. "The rule for a VB100 is to have 100 percent, so Avira didn't get the VB100 award this time.

The problem was already fixed by the time the VB magazine was published.


Go Avira!!

 

[Rick]

I don't trust the results because they do not include Antivirus XP 2009!

So many people have XP Antivirus 2009 installed these days.. I mean.. it must be awesome, right? And with such a dedicated user base, I can't take seriously a study which does not include such a major AV package.........

 

[captaincranky]

Rick, how do I get hold of this wonderful product? I would need it for multiple PCs. Is there a family pack available? Does it include Spyware Sheriff?

 

[red1776]

"Continually repeating the same word or very short phrase is usually best when associated with the training of animals. This, combined with the issuance of dietary enticements is the tried and proven methodology."

ROFL....verily, thou art the master of sarcasm

 

[9Nails]

Not to negate the results of the article, but they missed an important part of the test for me - what was the CPU / memory requirements to detect those viruses? If a product takes up 10% of the time on a Pentium 4 and 30% of 512 Megs, then I might look to a scanning engine that detects as many viruses with a lighter footprint on my PC.

 

[Guest]

@9Nails,

clearly you dont understand VB100. if you want the fastest and lightest av then why not just dowload the trials and test them each. also you may want to look to other test , av-comparative.com, there you will find scan speed. but if you want the fastest and lightest, ill make your life easier. Use these AV not the IS versions: AVIRA 9, AVAST PRO 4, NORTON AV 2010, ESET NOD32 4. there you have it. no kaspersky, no avg ok. just pick one. If your into Internet security then it is a different world.

Im sure your P4 can play crysis without performance hit by theses av

 

[captaincranky]

Oooo, Now the test is Wrong......

That "a false positive equals fail" criteria makes VB a very misleading test. Avira is well-known as a top-notch AV product and in most serious comparisons (like avcomparatives) it always ends up between the top 5.

Just by the fact that a mediocre app like CA eTrust is on the winners side and a rock solid product like Avira is on the losers side, VB tests deserve a FAIL.

The fascinating thing here is, that at this site,it's claimed Avira catches everything, and you're an ***** if you use anything else. So, it follows logically that if Avira screwed up, even a little, that the test would be wrong. After all, thousands of Techspot egos can't be wrong.

AVG is dismissed as garbage, but it's always in the top 5 also. Funny how this never gets mentioned. Are the tests wrong about this, or should we have the result tailored to what everybody wants to hear?

I just stay away from P2P, avoid downloading other peoples belongings, and my internet machine lives happily ever after with AVG Free.

See, here's the deal, I don't think one tiny mistake diminishes Avira's utility one iota. I simply don't use it because it allowed a really annoying piece of malware onto my machine. This hasn't happened with any version of AVG to date. I don't plan on changing a winning game, simply because somebody else thinks they know it all.

Therefore, it seems that all the hair splitting and ranting is just an excuse for people to run their mouth and announce ad nauseum, that they know everything about AV solutions. And if not everything, then more than the next guy.

We'll see y'all in the malware removal forum, don't forget to read the threads at the top of the page. I'll even spot you a thread title, "I'm infected, boo m****** f******* hoo".

 

[mattfrompa]

I use Avira Antivir free on my personal machine and I like it, but I had used AVG for years before and never had many problems. It helped me clean several of my friends machines, and my family still uses AVG 8.5. Avira just ended up solving an issue that AVG 8 didn't. I have heard the hype for AVG 9, and plan to test it on my secondary machine.

I will say shamefully that Sophos used to be used at my place of work (purchased long before I got there). Now we use NOD32 v4 and no problems so far (4 months now).

 

[melty]

ive been a user of Alwil avast! for a few years now, had no problems sofar. I've been tempted by NOD32 in the past but cant justify changing.

 

[Guest]

Antivirus XP 2009 is the best product I have ever used! I didn't even have to download/install it myself - it did both for me! How's that make you feel when you have to download and install your inferior virus protection? Plus, this program tells me all the time how many dangerous threats are affecting my computer. And wow, it's a dangerous world out there; even from google I seem to get all sorts of virii. Luckily, Antivirus XP 2009 installed itself and protected me from them all. I'll be recommending it to everyone I know - I think this test is invalid since it does not include it.

@captaincranky - I do believe there is a family version available, just do a google for it and go to the first couple sites that come up. I'm sure it will install it for you, no hassle required!

 

[windmill007]

@RICK So true I love Antivirus 2009. It's always showing millions of viruses and removing them after I give them my credit card number. A truly wonderfully product. I heard a 2010 version is coming out. I can't wait!

 

[Kcircyrd]

Who is Virus Bulletin anyway?
No Antivirus Program is perfect for longer than a day, anyway.
We will trust our experience in repairing 40 machines a week over the Virus Bulletin. Our recent experience with AVG has not been good. Sophos is on college systems all over the US, and performs better than most in that environment... but costly

 

[Kcircyrd]

There is little relationship between the paid version and success.
Look how good AVG was before it got interested in money, and has now dropped to worthless, regardless of what Virus Bulletin says.,

Who owns Virus Bulletin? Where do they operate. Who funds them.
Until I see reliable reviews of Virus Bulletin, the name means nothing to me.

 

[yukka]

captaincranky said:

yes...but could you put a coherent thought together by the end of the day?

Easily, but then it's doubtful you'd be able to follow it.

Hints for the terminally dull; Only the first line of my original post applied to AVG.

Everything beyond the sentence including the product name, "Filseclab Twister" applied to that.

It is generally accepted form of style, not to continually reiterate the same word or phrase, when the relationship between the text and it's introduction has already been established.

Continually repeating the same word or very short phrase is usually best when associated with the training of animals. This, combined with the issuance of dietary enticements is the tried and proven methodology.

The dietary approach (to the training of animals) also leads us to Pavlov's observation that, "when you ring the bell, the dog salivates".

Now see, I inserted the parenthetical phrase, "to the training of animals", so that you would be able to easily follow the line of reasoning, reaffirm the original subject, and not have any necessity to refer back to the original text.

I sincerely hope that you're able to now follow this, and my previous post, as it would just destroy my whole day if you weren't.

>> txt mi if u cant <<

I will fix this for you since your grip on grammar and the english language leave much to be desired - do you get paid incentives for using excessive commas? Who knows..

yes...but could you put a coherent thought together by the end of the day?

Easily but then it's doubtful you'd be able to follow it.

Hints for the terminally dull: Only the first line of my original post applied to AVG.

Everything beyond the sentence including the product name "Filseclab Twister" applied to that.

It is generally accepted form of style not to continually reiterate the same word or phrase when the relationship between the text and it's introduction has already been established.

Continually repeating the same word or very short phrase is usually best when associated with the training of animals. This combined with the issuance of dietary enticements is the tried and proven methodology.

The dietary approach (to the training of animals) also leads us to Pavlov's observation that "when you ring the bell, the dog salivates".

Now see I inserted the parenthetical phrase "to the training of animals" so that you would be able to easily follow the line of reasoning to reaffirm the original subject and not have any necessity to refer back to the original text.

I sincerely hope that you're able to now follow this and my previous post as it would just destroy my whole day if you weren't.

 

[Guest]

Warning: The above was a joke. The program referred to is malware. Do not search for it!

 

[captaincranky]

Eddie, here's a couple of facts that I feel obligated to share. First allow me to share my thanks, gratitude, and joy, for your selfless act of proofreading my post. (I think all those commas were supposed to be there, get back to me on that, will ya).

Second, your re-posting of my entire diatribe, goes on to prove my theory about learning via repetitive means, words and tasks. You see, I firmly believe that a chimpanzee could be taught to copy and paste if it were showed the process in sufficient measure.

So then, control "c", control "v", control "c", control "v", then control "c", control "v", and finally, control "c", and control "v". So Eddie, do you think that methodology requires a highly articulate computer "scientist", or a chimpanzee?

I'm going with chimp, or damned close to one.

 

[captaincranky]

Quick Watson, the Needle...........

Dear Guest,

I'm guessing you're referring to Rick's post;

I don't trust the results because they do not include Antivirus XP 2009!

So many people have XP Antivirus 2009 installed these days.. I mean.. it must be awesome, right? And with such a dedicated user base, I can't take seriously a study which does not include such a major AV package.........

When you posted this;

Warning: The above was a joke. The program referred to is malware. Do not search for it!

I'm thinking you may have misinterpreted my post in response to Rick's;

Rick, how do I get hold of this wonderful product? I would need it for multiple PCs. Is there a family pack available? Does it include Spyware Sheriff?

as being sincere. Trust me Dear Guest, I don't do sincere very well. But, I am however, fairly competent at sarcasm!

In any event, good lookin' out, but, since Rick was just breaking b***s, I was simply returning the favor in kind. Sometimes the joke is enhanced, if someone takes the bait, as it were. If any prank post needed a straight man recently, that was it.

So, perhaps it might have been slightly irresponsible to feign petulance at not having, "XP Antivirus 2009" included in the study, but that doesn't make it any less funny.

With me you get the ice cream and the spanking simultaneously, so here goes. I would like to extend an invitation to join our forum, since it seems you care. << (the ice cream) Might I offer a suggestion for a screen name, "Sherlock Holmes". << (the spanking)

I'm not certain if this technique results in individuals that simply don't know right from wrong, but it's the only one I have, so I gotta run with it.