AV-test.org issues latest figures

Posted by   Virus Bulletin on   Mar 13, 2008

In-depth testing covers multiple factors.

Independent testing body AV-Test.org has released its latest set of results, with a large group of products tested against a number of criteria including proactive detection, spotting and removing active infections, and outbreak response times, as well as simple detection rates.

The results show how companies and their products fare against the latest range of samples arriving at AV-Test, with results of checking new arrivals used to determine the accuracy of heuristics and the efficacy of behavioural detection systems. Updates were also monitored over the test period to determine when companies added detection for new items not spotted using heuristics or generic detection. Detection and effective removal of active malware, including rootkits, is also measured, as is the impact on system performance.

As in AV-Comparatives' recent figures, multi-engine products such as AEC's Trustport, G DATA's AVK and the gateway scanning product WebWasher all performed very strongly in the pure detection test, with Avira's AntiVir also achieving very high scores in both malware and 'potentially unwanted' categories.

The multi-engine products showed their weakness when it came to scanning times and false positives however, and also fared poorly against rootkits, while Avira did well across the board, ranking 'good' or 'very good' in all categories. The only other product to achieve this feat was Sophos, with Symantec and Panda let down only by their response times to outbreaks, marked as merely 'Satisfactory', and McAfee also failing to excel in scanning speed.

The results of the tests are shown in full below.

Overall results


Productmalware on demandadware / spyware on demandfalse positivesscan speedproactive detectionresponse timesrootkit detectioncleaning
AntiVir (Avira)++++ (*1)++++++++
Avast! (Alwil)+++++o+oo
AVG+++ (*1)++oo+o
AVK (G Data)++++o--+++---
BitDefender+++o-++++o
ClamAV--------++----
Dr Weboooo+o++
eScan+oo-+++----
eTrust / VET (CA)----++o---+++
Fortinet-GWoo--++++n/a (*2)n/a (*2)
F-Prot (Frisk)+o++-ooo
F-Secure+o+o++++++
Ikarus++++o+++oo
K7 Computing----o-------
Kaspersky+oo-+++++
McAfee+++++o+o+++
Microsoft+o++o---o++
Nod32 (Eset)+++++++++++
Normanoo+-+ooo
Norton (Symantec)++++++++o++++
Panda++++++o++o
QuickHeal (CAT)--oooo-o
Risingo++oooo+
Sophos+++++++++++
Trend Micro++++++++++
TrustPort++++---++++----
VBA32-ooo+oo+
VirusBuster----+o-oo+
WebWasher-GW++++o++++++n/a (*2)n/a (*2)
ZoneAlarm+oo-++++o

Index
++ = very good> 98%> 98%no FP  < 2 h  
+ = good> 95%> 95%1 FP  2 - 4 h  
o = satisfactory> 90%> 90%2 FP  4 - 6 h  
- = poor> 85%> 85%3 FP  6 - 8 h  
-- = very poor< 85%< 85%> 3 FP  > 8 h  

Notes
(1) the free (personal) edition does not include ad- and spyware detection, so the results would be "--"
(2) not available (this is a gateway product)

Detection rates for malware, adware and spyware


ProductMalware samplesAdware and Spyware
AntiVir (Avira)99.3%99.1%
Avast! (Alwil)98.8%97.9%
AVG96.3%98.6%
AVK (G Data)99.9%99.9%
BitDefender97.8%98.8%
ClamAV84.8%82.4%
Dr Web90.4%92.8%
eScan96.7%92.1%
eTrust / VET (CA)72.1%56.5%
Fortinet-GW92.4%91.2%
F-Prot (Frisk)96.7%92.0%
F-Secure96.8%93.5%
Ikarus98.0%98.8%
K7 Computing65.5%59.5%
Kaspersky97.2%92.0%
McAfee95.6%98.6%
Microsoft97.8%91.5%
Nod32 (Eset)97.8%96.3%
Norman92.8%91.9%
Norton (Symantec)95.7%98.6%
Panda95.6%95.6%
QuickHeal (CAT)85.7%86.7%
Rising94.1%95.9%
Sophos98.1%98.8%
Trend Micro98.7%95.1%
TrustPort99.6%99.8%
VBA3289.9%92.1%
VirusBuster76.2%77.8%
WebWasher-GW99.9%99.9%
ZoneAlarm96.4%94.5%
Number of samples113055683054

Full testing methodology is here.

Posted on 13 March 2008 by Virus Bulletin

 Tags

AV-Test testing
twitter.png
fb.png
linkedin.png
googleplus.png
reddit.png

 

Latest posts:

Throwback Thursday: Following the Breadcrumbs

In 1999, Christine Orshesky described how one large organization decided to find out how and where the viruses within it were being obtained so it could do more to protect its networks.

VB2016 preview: Cryptography mistakes in malware

At VB2016, two talks will discuss mistakes made by malware authors in cryptographic implementations. Ben Herzog and Yaniv Balmas will present a paper in which they look at a number of these mistakes, while Malwarebytes researcher hasherezade will…

GPS technology is more at risk from cyber attack than ever before, security expert demonstrates at VB2016

Next month at VB2016, HPE Security's Oleg Petrovsky will speak about attacks on GPS. We conducted a short interview with Oleg and asked him about GPS, about the conference, and about his ultimate dinner party.

BSides Denver: Join and Support the Security Community

If you are coming to VB2016 in Denver, why not spend an extra day in the Mile-High City and join the free BSides Denver conference, which takes place on Saturday?

VB2016 'Last-Minute' Papers Announced

We are excited to announce the addition of the "last-minute" papers to the VB2016 programme: nine presentations covering hot research topics, from OS X attacks to exotic APTs, breaking ransomware and the current state of BGP.