Off topic - AntiVirus accuracy competition

Hugo van der Kooij hvdkooij at
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:

Files: 105963
MBRs: 0
Boot sectors: 0
Objects scanned: 120985
Infected: 42790
Suspicious: 46122
Disinfected: 0
Deleted: 0
Renamed: 0

Time: 249:21

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
 	    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 mailing list