"speed" of virusscanners

[Peter Peters]

On Wed, 26 May 2004 11:08:09 +0100, you wrote:

>No ClamAv, no Bitdefender :-(

No clamav. A number of variances weren't even detected at the end of the
testperiode so it wasn't included in the result. Same goes vor Ikarus.

Bitdefender was second between KAspersky and f-prot with an average of
01:19. Those three also had very good deviations between the detection
times.

Another problem with Norton was the lack of speed in detecting the
backdoors installed with the worms. Especcialy a problem because early
worms could have installed it making the owner think he was save when
Norton started to detect the worms.

>The problem with these tests is that they don't say (maybe they do in the
>full article) whether these timings relate to updated virus patterns which
>are made available via the normally released virus pattern files.  If these
>times relate to vendors issuing "extra" pattern files which have to be
>manually downloaded and installed, the whole survey would be bogus.

This goes for definitions that could be downloaded automatically. As far
as I understood from the article. It isn't explicitly mentioned.

--
Peter Peters, senior netwerkbeheerder
Dienst Informatietechnologie, Bibliotheek en Educatie (ITBE)
Universiteit Twente,  Postbus 217,  7500 AE  Enschede
telefoon: 053 - 489 2301, fax: 053 - 489 2383, http://www.utwente.nl/itbe

-------------------------- MailScanner list ----------------------
To leave, send    leave mailscanner    to jiscmail at jiscmail.ac.uk
Before posting, please see the Most Asked Questions at
http://www.mailscanner.biz/maq/     and the archives at
http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/mailscanner.html