Off topic - AntiVirus accuracy competition
Hugo van der Kooij
hvdkooij at vanderkooij.org
Wed Aug 15 06:48:20 IST 2007
On Wed, 15 Aug 2007, Kai Schaetzl wrote:
> Hugo van der Kooij wrote on Tue, 14 Aug 2007 22:49:21 +0200 (CEST):
>> The short summary? I find Kaspersky and F-Prot doing rather badly compared
>> to the list you quote.
> Hm, looking on your list and seeing the *very* bad result for F-Prot I would
> rather search for the glitch in *your* testing/data-mining procedure. It
> cannot be *that* bad - unless it's a well outdated product (is it?). A
> maverick like that usually indicates that something is wrong in the method or
> data, rather than in the product tested.
The main diffeence between the old setup and the new one is the amount of
recent samples. One of the Vv partners gave me access to the raw
collection of garbage they intercepted world wide. The old testing was
against relative few recent samples.
The last test batch was started on the 15th and for F-Prot it reported the
Virus scanning report - 15 August 2007 @ 3:23
Program version: 4.6.8
Engine version: 3.16.16
VIRUS SIGNATURE FILES
SIGN.DEF created 14 August 2007
SIGN2.DEF created 14 August 2007
MACRO.DEF created 14 August 2007
I find the results at least odd and am still looking into it myself to see
if any snag is present. In the past I had to remove files that could kill
some scanners.Something similar might be happening here. But 23MB of text
makes up for a lot of reading to find deviations.
hvdkooij at vanderkooij.org http://hugo.vanderkooij.org/
This message is using 100% recycled electrons.
Some men see computers as they are and say "Windows"
I use computers with Linux and say "Why Windows?"
(Thanks JFK, for the insight.)
More information about the MailScanner