Jump to content

Recommended Posts

You have to be careful with these tests.

 

Kaspersky is shown to have the best detection - the only one to detect 13621 out of 13621 viruses.

 

But the following is admitted ONLY AFTER the authors present the test results:

 

 

Google Translation:

"Without the surprise, most effective concerning the number of detected viruses is Kaspersky. Without surprise because it seems that the sources used to constitute our base are they same based on viruses detected by the Russian software. "

 

"Kaspersky Antivirus 2006 is remarkable for its performances in detection, even if it is necessary to moderate its results by recalling that our base seems to be established with this software. "

 

Original:

"Sans surprise, le plus efficace concernant le nombre de virus détectés est Kaspersky. Sans surprise parce qu'il semble que les sources utilisées pour constituer notre base se sont elles mêmes basées sur des virus détectés par le logiciel russe."

 

"Kaspersky Antivirus 2006 est remarquable pour ses performances en détection, même s'il faut tempérer ses résultats en rappelant que notre base semble avoir été établie avec ce logiciel."

 

So this comparison is SERIOUSLY FLAWED.

Edited by virkelie

Share this post


Link to post

Just wanted to add:

 

SERIOUSLY FLAWED, because the authors used a virus base already detected by Kaspersky.

 

Why did they even bother to run and report a virus detection test as regards Kaspersky - I don't understand.

Share this post


Link to post
Just wanted to add:

 

SERIOUSLY FLAWED, because the authors used a virus base already detected by Kaspersky.

 

Why did they even bother to run and report a virus detection test as regards Kaspersky - I don't understand.

Pretty difficult to see anything from that poor google translation, why didn'y you translate yourself, virkelie?

 

Does it say specifically that the samples was taken because there were already detected by Kaspersky or why exactly do you feel the nee to call it "SERIOUSLY FLAWED"?

Share this post


Link to post

"Pretty difficult to see anything from that poor google translation, why didn'y you translate yourself, virkelie?

 

Does it say specifically that the samples was taken because there were already detected by Kaspersky or why exactly do you feel the nee to call it "SERIOUSLY FLAWED"?"

 

 

I am from Montreal - and read the article in French.

 

I used google translation, because french is not my first language: but here is my translation:

 

"Without surprise, the most efficacious as to the number of viruses detected, is Kaspersky. Without surprise because it is likely the sources used to constitute our base are themselves based on viruses detected by the Russian software."

 

"Kaspersky Antivirus 2006 is remarkable for its performance in detection, even if one must qualify the results, recalling that our base appears to have been established with this software."

Edited by virkelie

Share this post


Link to post

"Sans surprise, le plus efficace concernant le nombre de virus détectés est Kaspersky. Sans surprise parce qu'il semble que les sources utilisées pour constituer notre base se sont elles mêmes basées sur des virus détectés par le logiciel russe."

 

Basically it tells that the base of virus signatures is probably related to what Kaspersky is detecting itself. I assume since Kaspersky has a large set of Signatures, it does make sense it passes this as #1, but the test was not based solely on this. Also the author uses the word "il semble" which means "it may seem", so the author does not admit it, but wants to show that if the program is actually catching the set of virus (from different categories). You can't really blame Kaspersky to have lot of signatures, that's actually a good thing.

 

Also if you read the conclusion, it does not say "buy this", it says no anti-virus is perfect, and it ranks them from the so-so to the best depending on catching a virus and performance, and time to boot, etc. and it picks two or three in each ranking, and also what I like about it, is that it differentiates the free vs non free.

 

Hope this helps,

Houman

Share this post


Link to post

If you want to compare antivirus software, you don't test the different software with a virus database that is already known, and particularly one that belongs to one of the software companies being tested.

 

I am sure there are many independent virus databases out there, which could have been used.

 

It's like giving students the test questions in advance; but even worse, giving only one student the test questions in advance, and then seeing who is the best student.

 

What is bad about this article, is that it is misleading - it presents the results BEFORE admitting its methods.

 

I am looking for an alternative to McAfee Virusscan; I have narrowed the choice to Nod32 and Kaspersky.

 

If you check the Nod32 forum, you'll find references to articles which say Nod32 is the best. But invariably - you'll find these articles are also flawed, for similar reasons.

 

Articles, such as these, are not helpfull.

Edited by virkelie

Share this post


Link to post

I emailed the author, and asked him to comment here...

 

I still think you're over-reacting on the matter, in any case Kaspersky detects like 99+% malware in : http://www.av-comparatives.org/ anyways...

 

I would feel bad for other antivirus who did not detect the virus that Kaspersky found.

 

I think you're seeing the glass as half empty, but it's really half full.

 

Houman

Edited by houmi

Share this post


Link to post
If you want to compare antivirus software, you don't test the different software with a virus database that is already known, and particularly one that belongs to one of the software companies being tested.

 

I am sure there are many independent virus databases out there, which could have been used.

 

It's like giving students the test questions in advance; but even worse, giving only one student the test questions in advance, and then seeing who is the best student.

 

What is bad about this article, is that it is misleading - it presents the results BEFORE admitting its methods.

 

I am looking for an alternative to McAfee Virusscan; I have narrowed the choice to Nod32 and Kaspersky.

 

If you check the Nod32 forum, you'll find references to articles which say Nod32 is the best.  But invariably - you'll find these articles are also flawed, for similar reasons.

 

Articles, such as these, are not helpfull.

Well, i agree about the fact that there are not many good tests around....but i fail to see (maybe something missing in the translation) that the signatures belong to Kaspersky.......in fact i can guarantee you that they don't!....................because they simply do not give out samples to anyone.

Share this post


Link to post
Well, i agree about the fact that there are not many good tests around....but i fail to see (maybe something missing in the translation) that the signatures belong to Kaspersky.......in fact i can guarantee you that they  don't!....................because they simply do not give out samples to anyone.

 

Don, I digged thru it more on the article, and I found the list they use... pretty extensive I'd have to say.

liste_des_13621_virus_francais_23187.zip

Share this post


Link to post

I'm fairly sure nearly evryone knows there is an independent test lab

on the West coast (USA) where McAfee,Symantec among others Are tested

and yet that lab touts CA,KIS,PCcillin aka Trend Micro and Zone Alarm 6.5 SS as being best.

 

I strongly disafree about ZASS though. That is what brought me over

to KIS to begin with by having ZASS and running Kaspersky's free scan

that uncovered 250 trojans Zone Alarm missed.

Now I am A Happy Camper :D

Edited by tactful

Share this post


Link to post
I strongly disafree about ZASS though. That is what brought me over

to KIS to begin with by having ZASS and running Kaspersky's free scan

that uncovered 250 trojans Zone Alarm missed.

Now I am A Happy Camper  :D

 

I used to have ZASS as well, (v6.5?) I was very very happy with its firewall (since I have been using ZA for awhile) and I had upgrade to Pro. I was surprised when I ran the free version of KAV back at the time as well and found many trojans and actually virii that ZASS had missed and it gets #1 in Consumer report all the time. So that was it for me. I actually had two 180 days license left as well, but security is more important to me.

 

I actually believe that no solution is 100% perfect. Most these tests load the system with virus when an anti virus is not running, and let the anti virus run to see how many it detects (maybe that's what an avg person in the world has -- a computer with no security program), but usually a computer that has a resident shield of any sort running is more or less prone to virii (depending on the programs). That's why I think everyone should be running at least some sort of Software Firewall on their PC, it does help catching hidden culprits often.

 

-H

Share this post


Link to post
I used to have ZASS as well, (v6.5?) I was very very happy with its firewall (since I have been using ZA for awhile) and I had upgrade to Pro. I was surprised when I ran the free version of KAV back at the time as well and found many trojans and actually virii that ZASS had missed and it gets #1 in Consumer report all the time. So that was it for me. I actually had two 180 days license left as well, but security is more important to me.

 

I actually believe that no solution is 100% perfect. Most these tests load the system with virus when an anti virus is not running, and let the anti virus run to see how many it detects (maybe that's what an avg person in the world has -- a computer with no security program), but usually a computer that has a resident shield of any sort running is more or less prone to virii (depending on the programs). That's why I think everyone should be running at least some sort of Software Firewall on their PC, it does help catching hidden culprits often.

 

-H

Houmi,yes what I had was the 2006 Pro version too and also was very happy

with product,firewall,ect with over 3 months on it left.right after the 6.5 upgrade.

then out of nowhere one day the entire suite just disappeared

I tried everything I could think of but to no avail

 

very true that one product has no 100% solution however

KIS comes very close to meeting the challenge

after that scare am I ever glad I found and hooked up with KIS

 

T

Edited by tactful

Share this post


Link to post

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We use cookies to make your experience of our websites better. By using and further navigating this website you accept this. Detailed information about the use of cookies on this website is available by clicking on more information.