Off topic - AntiVirus accuracy competition
Hugo van der Kooij
hvdkooij at vanderkooij.org
Sat Aug 18 10:52:23 IST 2007
On Fri, 17 Aug 2007, Kai Schaetzl wrote:
> Hugo van der Kooij wrote on Fri, 17 Aug 2007 22:19:24 +0200 (CEST):
>> It ended up to be a single sample that shot f-prot to pieces. The results
>> are much better now for F-Prot. Now I need to see if something else is
>> bothering Kaspersky.
> Thanks for the update ;-) I'm amazed about the good standing of Bitdefender
> and the (now) low standing of Clam. On the one machine where I have both
> running in parallel they always score both. I must be missing some of the
> viruses that cause this. Could it be that quite a few you got in your new
> sample actually never made it to the wild in bigger quantities?
A lot of them do not transfer over SMTP. So you will never see them in MS
I am still brooding on why Kaspersky fails so miserably.
F-Prot just reported:
Results of virus scanning:
Boot sectors: 0
Objects scanned: 120985
But Kaspersky ran after that on the same collection and found:
Scan summary: Files=55998 Folders=28884 Archives=6051 Packed=25723
Infected=49332 Warnings=4 Suspicios=163 Cured=0 CureFailed=0 Corrupted=121
Protected=604 Error=0 ScanTime=01:05:31 ScanSpeed=1757.622 Kb/s
It seems to miss nearly half of all the files. It seems I have some work
cut out for me yet.
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