Errata - Windows Server 2003 comparative review

Posted by Virus Bulletin on Dec 2, 2004

VB regrets that three mistakes crept into the Comparative review published in the November issue.

The mistakes were as follows:

The version number for Sophos Anti Virus should have read 3.86, not 3.83 as published.
The values for CAT Quickheal in the standard on-demand test set should have read 'Misses: 169, Detection: 92.91%' in all occurrences (the on access results were erroneously duplicated).
Norman Virus Control did not reproducibly miss detection of any samples in the In the Wild test set and thus is due a VB100% award.

VB apologises for the errors.

Posted on 02 December 2004 by Virus Bulletin

Latest posts:

Top 5 reasons why leading security companies are sending their teams to VB2025

VB2025 is coming up September 24-26 in Berlin, and teams from major enterprises, government agencies, and security companies are already planning their attendance. Here's why people keep coming back.

What cybersecurity experts are talking about in 2025

The cybersecurity field moves quickly, with new research surfacing regularly and threat actors constantly shifting their approaches. We've gathered five recent research topics that caught our attention, each offering a different angle on the current…

VBSpam tests to be executed under the AMTSO framework

VB is excited to announce that, starting from the Q3 test, all VBSpam tests of email security products will be executed under the AMTSO framework.

In memoriam: Prof. Ross Anderson

We were very sorry to learn of the passing of Professor Ross Anderson a few days ago.

In memoriam: Dr Alan Solomon

We were very sorry to learn of the passing of industry pioneer Dr Alan Solomon earlier this week.