Off topic - AntiVirus accuracy competition

[Martin.Hepworth]

Steve

I was surprised buy Sophos low score on this. They are expensive, but there hit rate has always been very reliable. In fact whenever the desktop AV has missed something, I'll pop on Sophos and every time it's found the issue....

I think I'll treat this with a large pinch of salt..

--
Martin Hepworth
Snr Systems Administrator
Solid State Logic
Tel: +44 (0)1865 842300
> -----Original Message-----
> From: mailscanner-bounces at lists.mailscanner.info [mailto:mailscanner-
> bounces at lists.mailscanner.info] On Behalf Of Stephen Swaney
> Sent: 14 August 2007 23:47
> To: 'MailScanner discussion'
> Subject: RE: Off topic - AntiVirus accuracy competition
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: mailscanner-bounces at lists.mailscanner.info [mailto:mailscanner-
> > bounces at lists.mailscanner.info] On Behalf Of Kai Schaetzl
> > Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2007 6:31 PM
> > To: mailscanner at lists.mailscanner.info
> > Subject: Re: Off topic - AntiVirus accuracy competition
> >
> > 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 cannot be *that* bad - unless it's a well outdated product (is it?).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.
> >
> > Kai
> >
>
> Hey it's not my test. I just thought the article might be of interest to
> the
> list. You're all free to make your own decisions. I don't sell any virus
> scanners :)
>
> I know it was to me since we'll probably replace Sophos when it expires
> this
> fall. My personal feeling is that Sophos a bit expensive for the quality.
> That's been shown in several tests I've seen.
>
> All of the responses though have been of interest to me especially the
> ones
> that point out the flaws and virus scanners missing from the list.
>
> And always remember!
>
> 	the is never such a thing as an totally unbiased test :)
>
> Steve
>
> Steve Swaney
> steve at fsl.com
> www.fsl.com
>
> --
> MailScanner mailing list
> mailscanner at lists.mailscanner.info
> http://lists.mailscanner.info/mailman/listinfo/mailscanner
>
> Before posting, read http://wiki.mailscanner.info/posting
>
> Support MailScanner development - buy the book off the website!




**********************************************************************
Confidentiality : This e-mail and any attachments are intended for the 
addressee only and may be confidential. If they come to you in error 
you must take no action based on them, nor must you copy or show them 
to anyone. Please advise the sender by replying to this e-mail 
immediately and then delete the original from your computer.
Opinion : Any opinions expressed in this e-mail are entirely those of 
the author and unless specifically stated to the contrary, are not 
necessarily those of the author's employer.
Security Warning : Internet e-mail is not necessarily a secure 
communications medium and can be subject to data corruption. We advise 
that you consider this fact when e-mailing us. 
Viruses : We have taken steps to ensure that this e-mail and any 
attachments are free from known viruses but in keeping with good 
computing practice, you should ensure that they are virus free.

Red Lion 49 Ltd T/A Solid State Logic
Registered as a limited company in England and Wales 
(Company No:5362730)
Registered Office: 25 Spring Hill Road, Begbroke, Oxford OX5 1RU, 
United Kingdom
**********************************************************************