Latest Malware Research Group results.

[Matty_]

Link to the latest Malware research Group test which included the following:

1. A-Squared Anti-Malware 4.5.0.29

2. avast Antivirus Professional 5.0.462

3. AVG Anti-Virus Professional 9.0.801

4. Avira AntiVir Premium 10.0.0.597

5. BitDefender Antivirus 13.0.20.347

6. COMODO Internet Security 4.0.138377.779

7. ESET Nod32 Antivirus 4.0.474.0

8. F-Secure Antivirus 9.22 build 15450

9. G DATA Antivirus 20.2.4.1

10. Kaspersky Anti-Virus 9.0.0.736

11. McAfee AntiIVrus Plus 14.0.306

12. Microsoft Security Essentials 1.0.1961.0

13. Norton AntiVirus 17.6.0.32

14. Online Armor++ 4.0.0.35

15. VIPRE Antivirus Premium 4.0.3248

Think you may be surprised by the results (at least for one product!)

http://malwareresearchgroup.com/?page_id=2 The results on available on the pdf

you gotta love bullplop graphs.There was only 5% between top and bottom but the graph makes it look like a huge difference between them.

That aside I feel I may need a rethink

---------- Post added at 16:07 ---------- Previous post was at 15:43 ----------

A Squared it is then for static scans ie anything I download get scanned with this before running and Avast 5 for my main security package. Avira has to many adds and I do not feel the urge to pay

[DocDutch]

hmm mine isnt even on the list.... superantispyware

[Matty_]

The graph is a bit silly, i was slightly surprised by the results obtained by MSE but after speaking with one of the testers apparently it struggles with a certain type of malware of which there have been quite a few variants recently.
Obviously there where some others it didn`t pick up but most where from said family!
Asquared (soon to be emsi-soft) anti-malware seems to have been pretty consistent over a while now with high 90% scores. The USB free version is a great add on to anyones arsenal.

@Zing...How you finding Avast 5? I did try it a while ago on my main system but something seemed wrong as it made the system crawl at times. Looks like on the detection of newish stuff their right up there, have any of the updates after 5`s initial release helped performance?

5 seems fine to me only installed it yesterday.A Squared gave a few false positives though

[Druchii]

Originally Posted by Matty_

The graph is a bit silly, i was slightly surprised by the results obtained by MSE but after speaking with one of the testers apparently it struggles with a certain type of malware of which there have been quite a few variants recently.
Obviously there where some others it didn`t pick up but most where from said family!
Asquared (soon to be emsi-soft) anti-malware seems to have been pretty consistent over a while now with high 90% scores. The USB free version is a great add on to anyones arsenal.

@Zing...How you finding Avast 5? I did try it a while ago on my main system but something seemed wrong as it made the system crawl at times. Looks like on the detection of newish stuff their right up there, have any of the updates after 5`s initial release helped performance?

Been using Avast 5 for a while now, no slowdowns here (Win 7 x64)

[Tony.]

Originally Posted by Druchii

Been using Avast 5 for a while now, no slowdowns here (Win 7 x64)

Ditto

[dave6x]

I've been using Avast 5 for sometime on XP Pro on my laptop, and XP Pro and Vista Business on main desktop, no real problems except it really slows the startup on the lappy but OK once it's up and running!

[Matty_]

Cheers all, may give Avast another whirl...

[Toto]

Is MRG a respected testing body?

[Matty_]

They have been around for quite a while (based in Serbia) but are probably not as "respected" as say VB or AV-Comparitives.
Personally i think this type of testing isn`t that useful anymore and dynamic real world tests are the way forward. Static tests are fine for saying what detects what but there are allways going to be variables such as amount of samples, variety of samples, age of samples, etc, etc.

AMTSO certified testing is IMO the way forward, but no one seems to be able to get an AMTSO certified test sorted as the Methodolgies seem

Also this whole testing thing is IMO a grey area with little to no regulation. Sure people have set up various organizations but what and who is to say which are respected/trusted.
I noticed MSE failed the recent VB-100 for missing 1 wildlist sample while others which have an overall worse detection rate achieve the award. Personally i think that is wrong but hey that`s there way so who am i to argue!

At the end of the day no AV is going to catch everything, one test could show program X as being great but program Y average but another test could show a completely different outcome!