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:

Security products and HTTPS: let's do it better

A recent paper showed that many HTTPS-intercepting security solutions have implemented TLS rather poorly. Does that mean we should avoid such solutions altogether?

The SHA-1 hashing algorithm has been 'shattered'

Researchers from Google and CWI Amsterdam have created the first known collision of the SHA-1 hashing algorithm, making a very strong case to ditch it.

Throwback Thursday: Once a researcher...

VB was saddened to learn this week of the passing of one of the pioneers of the AV industry, Ross Greenberg. This Throwback Thursday we look back at an interview with Ross in November 1995.

VB2017: What is happening in the threat landscape and what are we doing against it? Submit a proposal in the VB2017 CFP!

Have you analysed a new online threat? Do you know a new way to defend against such threats? Then submit an abstract in the CFP for VB2017!

VB2016 paper: APT reports and OPSEC evolution, or: these are not the APT reports you are looking for

APT reports are great for gaining an understanding of how advanced attack groups operate - however, they can also provide free QA for the threat actors. Today, we publish a VB2016 paper by Gadi Evron (Cymmetria) and Inbar Raz (Perimeter X), who…