Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 88

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    Joined
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    206

    Thumbs up My Anti-virus Program Comparison Analysis

    My Anti-virus Program Comparison Analysis
    Version 0.3

    Note:
    - Again this post becomes more and more long-winded. So scan the bold/italic headings first. If the heading interests you, read on.
    - But please read this heading " Important!!!!! You should know before reading my reviews!!!!! " before going straight to my reviews.

    ==================================
    Update logs:

    v0.3
    Another 1/2 volume of contents are added
    - make more clarifications about this post, my comments and my reviews.
    - explain more about the limitations of my reviews and the summary tables.
    - inclusion of Important!!!!! You should know before reading my table!!!!! So hopefully readers will not be misled when reading my tables.
    - clarify, add some comments made on anti-virus programs
    - The dates of the reports are added
    - mistakes on the images are discovered

    v0.2
    A lot of contents are added. The post expands by 3/4 volume.
    - Explanation on My evaluation methodology
    - Add a lot more comments on the anti-virus programs
    - Have some overviews on their strong and weak points
    - Includes links to my reports
    - Includes links to other brief reports

    v0.1
    - the first draft of my post

    ==================================

    Introduction
    It is hard for us to judge if an anti-virus can protect us well. Simply using it cannot give you accurate evaluation. Consider this case. A virus bypassed your anti-virus program. They don't cause serious problems in your computer. You never notice of its existence. You still feel your anti-virus program is doing a great job.

    In this regard, I did a long research. Afterward I tried to pick up some of the best anti-virus programs and introduce to you. So you can save your time and troubles reading a lot of reports, or thinking hard on picking a good AV program.

    I tried to summarize a lot of reports and provide one large table for users to read. In the table, I try to compare different anti-virus programs in terms of their virus protection capabilities, including a lot of areas, namely:
    - ITW (known/common virus) protection
    - Zoo (unknown/rare virus) protection
    - heuristic system
    - false positives (ie false alarm to clean files)
    - compressed files
    - non-viral malware protection
    - office infected files
    - virus removal ability
    - and so on

    Hopefully you may find the information useful. Enjoy!

    ==================================================

    My evaluation methodology
    I am going to comment on their anti-virus capabilities based on the reports I have read, some of which brief, some detailed; and some of the tests/trials I made (if applicable).

    I value detailed reports much more than simple/brief reports because they analyse their anti-virus capabilities in a comprehensive and thorough way, not just focus on one aspect only. Usually the brief reports assess their abilities to detect known (ITW) viruses. And it is not uncommon for them to make mistakes.

    I hardly rely on magazine reviews because their analyses are light and may be partial as some articles point these problems out.

    I would pick up the best ones if more reports (at least 2, and especially the detailed ones) rank them excellent. I will not conclude an anti-virus program as excellent just by 1 report says so.

    Even within the same report, some parts may not be representative enough (eg because I notice their sampling size is small). Then I will not rely a lot on these results in making my judgement.

    I won't really add any subjective points/opinions into my judgement. I am based on the results given from reports and tests, and make conclusions.

    Finally I have provided a table which summarises most of the detailed reports. The brief reports are excluded. But I have provided links, so you can read them yourself.
    All the summary tables and links can be found at the end of my post.
    Help yourself and enjoy! :P


    Important!!!!! You should know before reading my reviews!!!!!
    Since some readers are (or will be) frequently raising such kinds of questions/challenges, it is the best to make a good strong emphasis first. So reader will not be misled from the information in my post.

    Q: So are you suggesting XXX is the best AV program, and all people must use this one?!? I'm no longer a 3-year-old baby!!!
    A: No, I haven't made such claim in anywhere of my post. I just pick the best AV program based on their AV capabilities only, and no more. High AV capabilities are just one aspect (although important). There are some other aspects which we haven't considered (eg features, ease of use, compatibility/stability). You may need to consider them as well before making a decision.
    In a nutshell, AV with the best AV capabilities is never a byword for the best AV!! Don't be confused with these 2 ;-)

    Q: Your comments and recommendations are extremely subjective! Please consider rewriting it.
    A: All my comments are based on rock solid facts, I try my best to isolate all my sentiments before reach my judgement. I don't add any comments/opinions/points which are not found in the reports.
    And I don't rely on ONE SINGLE report to make my judgement. This is to prevent the mistakes, bias or whatever bad things made by a report. In fact, I've read a lot of reports in order to reach the conclusions.
    In fact, my spirit was as if on vacation when I was writing my report. I completely submitted to what the reports say. All are written by the reports, NOT me. Scary huh?
    If you ever find one single point which is not concluded from any report, please tell me and I will gladly remove it.

    Q: Your conclusions are completely unacceptable. They are all contradictory to our common sense. XXX is known to be the best. Everyone knows except you idiot.
    A: Bear in mind, if I say something is not good, it is in terms of their AV capabilities and no more. What's more, it is the reports which lead me to the conclusions, NOT me. My spirit was away when making such judgement.
    As far as AV capabilities is concerned, if it is said their AV capabilities are not good enough, I am confident to tell you it is very likely to be the case.
    I realise it is exceptionally hard to accept. But it is painfully true. It is the same to me. When I see how my favorite AV programs score poorly, I feel upset. I don't wish to accept the truth and comfort myself, saying such-and-such reports must be mistaken and so on. But it is not just 1 report which says so, at least it has to be 2 very reliable sources in order to make me such kinds of conclusions.
    However there are some limitations in the reports. For details, see the heading " Limitations" at the end of my post.

    Q: How can you say XXX is abysmal? In fact there are much more crappy AV programs which are worse than XXX. Why don't you criticise them? You are too demanding!!!!!
    A: All anti-virus programs which are short-listed should meet the general standard. Otherwise I will not list them in the first place.
    In fact, all are about comparisons. All comments are relative. XXX is said to be bad if others are better than XXX. When others only detect 50% of virus and XXX detects 70%, it is already the best and we will say it is excellent. However when others detect 90% but XXX detects 70% as usual, we will no longer say XXX is good anymore. It is because the standard is pushing up.
    The same case holds true again. But among the top products, they are just bad by comparison. In fact, most of them do good jobs.

    Q: Why don't you analyse more AV programs like YYY or ZZZ? There are far far more anti-virus programs in the market. Do you have any evil plans in mind?
    A: Yes, I only shortlisted the well-known & good ones. It is because most people wish to know about them. It appears to be no point in spending time on analysing a crappy or immature AV program, just to tell you how crappy the AV program is. And I doubt people care to know about that.
    However it is worth analysing among all good AV programs, so you can see their strong and weak points by the process of competitions.
    By the way, I may have some evil plans in mind. Who knows (including me)? ;-D


    The best anti-virus programs
    [Note: All comments are based on the information found in the reports. I don't add any personal statements/opinions in making my judgement]

    McAfee http://www.mcafee.com/us/?cid=10550
    - A well-rounded anti-virus(AV) program which achieve well in most of its areas, but not perfect. (Anyway no AV program is perfect)
    - It is the only program which can remove ALL viruses (100%) successfully in a series of virus removal tests performed by a report.
    - It hardly generates any false positive which is a merit. 0 false positive is impressive.
    - It has problems in detecting virus in archived and compressed files though.

    Kaspersky AVP http://www.kaspersky.com/
    - It focuses a lot on its detection capabilities. It can catch more viruses than others (eg Norton).
    - It does well to catch unknown viruses too which is also an aspect we should not ignore.
    - It works harder to deal with non-viral (less harmful) malware which other anti-virus programs often ignore.
    - But it can't disinfect well.
    - In a test, it has serious problems in catching any boot virus. Yes, it caught 0 boot virus when you access to the infected files.
    - It generates some false positives once in a while. McAfee can generate none for most of the time. It can't.


    Seemingly good AV programs
    (See next reply please)
    Last edited by Wai_Wai; 12-31-2004 at 12:52 AM.

  2. #2
    Joined
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    206

    Re: My Anti-virus Program Comparison Analysis

    Seemingly good AV programs
    The following may be good although I would like to read more reports to confirm:
    F-Secure http://www.f-secure.com/
    - It seems it incorporates multi-search engines into its anti-virus program, but one article argues that it doesn't help you much. It is just a marginal benefit. The costs don't outweigh the small benefits.
    - Anyway, it seems to have good virus protection although I need to read more to confirm.

    AVK http://www.antiviruslab.com/
    - This program seems good but only gets German version only.
    - I haven't included this in my analysis (because the program is German) . More reading is needed to confirm its quality.


    Some other anti-virus programs
    It may surprise you much, and exceptionally hard to accept. Some anti-virus programs are well-known but do not do their job well. They just can't beat the best ones:
    Norton Anti-Virus (Symantec)
    - Although it is a long-established anti-virus company, I couldn't imagine it can score poorly in some areas, as if it were an immature new anti-virus program. I suppose it is excellent, at least in terms of anti-virus protection.
    - It cannot detect and scan well as most people might suppose so
    - It has problems in scanning archived/compressed files

    PC-cillin (TrendMicro)
    - Doesn't do well in detecting both known and unknown viruses.
    - can hardly equal McAfee and Kaspersky in terms of anti-virus capabilities.

    Avast (Alwil)
    AVG (Grisoft)
    - quite many people recommend these 2, but unfortunately here's the bad news - their AV shields are not strong, I'm afraid. They are not mature at this stage.
    - They can't catch known viruses well. Avast (80.55%); AVG (72%). At least it needs to be above 90% in order to meet the case.
    - They can become infirm in face of unknown viruses.
    - They can't handle archived/compressed files properly.
    - Generate far more false positives than Norton and McAfee.

    NOD32 (Eset)
    - As a comparison, it is better in detecting unknown viruses than known viruses.
    - But it is not a good idea since the chance of encountering a known virus is much higher than that of unknown.
    - Need to work hard to deal with known viruses. It scores 82.68% only in one test. Fail!
    - False positives are one of the problems

    Panda Anti-Virus
    - Don't protect well.
    - Become infirm in face of unknown viruses.
    - System crashed in WinME while scanning in one of the test!
    - Have some glitches.

    ================================================================

    About my table
    I would like to say sorry first of all.
    The table is far from perfect. I haven't explained each entry and their scores. I rely on your wisdom to interpret the data, still less it is too simple and ugly.

    But that substandard table has already spent me 1 day to produce it! Unbelievable but true!
    I slept late at 4:00am on that day, and had to wake up early at 8:00am on the next day to work... Exhausted...

    If you don't understand some parts of the table and would like to know more, ask me and I will explain to you.
    Even if you just wish to know more details about your favorite AV programs, you may ask me too, and I will compile more for you. Alternatively, you may read the links and explore yourself.
    My table is just a starting point to give you some general ideas about your favorite AV programs.

    Details of analysis
    Back to the issue, the tables are as follows:
    [Note: Thanks for telling by a kindhearted user. I made a silly mistake at the company name of RAV (GeACD). Please read GeACD as GeCAD. Blame me for making a table at midnight!!]

    Annual Report 1
    (Date of the report: 2004. See, very new and up-to-date report! :P)
    http://img74.exs.cx/img74/9296/avcompare017ol.gif


    Annual Report 2
    (Date of the report: 1st test - 2002; 2nd test - 2001)
    http://img72.exs.cx/img72/3131/avcompare021hx.gif


    Annual Report 3
    (Date of the report: 1st test - 2003; 2nd test - 2002)
    http://img98.exs.cx/img98/9688/avcompare035tj.gif


    Thanks for ImageShack http://reg.imageshack.us/v_images.php for free image hosting.

    Limitations

    Outdated reports are the problems.
    I have to admit the reports I chosen are not up to date. Most of the detailed reports are 1-2 years ago. Av-comparatives produce the latest reports. But frankly, they reports are not as comprehensive as some of my other reports (although it is still better than quite many other reports/reviews).

    But why detailed reports are always outdated? It is easy to understand why. It's because a good and comprehensive anti-virus report needs a lot of time to produce - Half year is not unbelievable! It is never impossible to finish a report within a month unless you are going to read some magazine reviews.

    I rely on detailed reports to make most of my comments because they are more trustworthy and reliable than brief reports and magazine reviews. But the price is I cannot get up-to-date information.

    Think twice, if the information is not accurate or reliable, what's the point of getting them even if they are up-to-date?

    How to deal with this 1-year gap?
    Nevertheless we don't really need to worry too much about this limitation (the information is 1 year old. I call it 1-year gap :P). If the normal situation goes, a good program will keep being good even after 1 year. If you haven't heard of any (major) bad news from the AV program within the year, it is quite safe to assume the program is still good. It shouldn't change dramatically in this 1-year gap.

    On the other hand, if you hear from many magazines saying some new anti-virus programs do very well (or they suddenly improve substantially) in this 1-year gap, but the detailed reports are not available, it could be a painful dilemma. However I would like to say something about magazine reviews (or its similar types):
    - Most simply do not have enough resources to conduct effective and representative anti-virus capability test. Unless the magazine is using the results from a big and independent testing organisation, the reviews cannot reflect their true value.
    - Some magazines receive money support from these anti-virus programs (by advertisements etc.) So do you think they are will be impartial enough
    - Small magazines may rely on analyses or research data from big magazines. Then they make their reviews and comments based on these data. So...

    But many users praise anti-virus programs highly. So it must be good, right? Yes, it may be. But I would like to point out some of the cases where it would not be true:
    - Users comments are based on the magazine reviews they have read. And magazine reviews are actually... so...
    - Experiences may lie unfortunately. Consider this case. A virus bypassed your anti-virus program. They don't cause serious problems in your computer. You never notice of its existence. You still feel your anti-virus program is doing a great job.
    - An anti-virus program generated a false positive, falsely claiming that the file is infected. You think it is great. Other anti-virus programs cannot detect this virus, but this anti-virus program can. Excellent!

    Finally, I wish you good luck on the road towards the best anti-virus program.

    Other links of brief reports:
    http://www.virus.gr/english/fullxml/default.asp
    http://www.virusbtn.com/
    http://www.icsalabs.com/

    Excellent sources of anti-virus comparison reports!!
    http://forums.pcper.com/showthread.p...59#post3292759

  3. #3
    Joined
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Utah
    Age
    38
    Posts
    1,121

    Re: My Anti-virus Program Comparison Analysis

    A great resource. Thanks!

    So what were the viruses that you infected the machine(s) with?

  4. #4
    Joined
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    206

    Re: My Anti-virus Program Comparison Analysis

    > A great resource. Thanks!
    You are too welcome.

    > So what were the viruses that you infected the machine(s) with?
    Are you asking the types of the viruses?
    It includes:
    Boot viruses (on floppy disks)
    File viruses
    * DOS (16 Bit)
    * Linux (IA32)
    * Windows (16 Bit)
    * Windows (32 Bit)
    * Other (Java, OS/2, PalmOS)

    Macro viruses
    * A97M (Access 97/2000/XP)
    * PP97M (Powerpoint 97/2000/XP)
    * W97M (Word 97/2000/XP)
    * WM (Word 95=6.0)
    * X97M (Excel 97/2000/XP)
    * XF (Excel 4.0 until XP, formula)
    * XM (Excel 95=5.0)
    * Other (A2M, APM, P98M, W2M)

    Script viruses
    * BAT
    * JS (JavaScript)
    * mIRC worms
    * VBS (Visual Basic Script)
    * Other (Acad, Csc, Inf, Unix etc.)

    Polymorphic viruses
    * DOS (16 Bit)
    * VBS (Visual Basic Script)
    * Windows (32 Bit)
    * WM (Word 95=6.0)

    Other Malware
    * ActiveX controls
    * Backdoors
    * Trojan Horses

    Virus from Archive
    * Single packed archives
    - ACE/ARJ/CAB/LHA/RAR/ZIP
    - Unix: B2/GZ/TAR/TBZ/TGZ
    * Scan of multiple packed archives
    - ACE/ARJ/CAB/LHA/RAR/ZIP
    * self extracting archives (SFX)
    - ACE/ARJ/LHA/RAR16/RAR32/ZIP
    * Warning on pwd protected archives?

    Compressed program files
    * DOS runtime compression
    - Diet/Ice/LzExe/PkLite/WWPack
    * Windows runtime compression
    - ASPack/Neolite/PEPack/Petite
    - PKLite32/Shrink/UPX/WWPack32

    Embedded OLE Objects
    * Following types in a DOC file
    - COM/DOC/EXE/PPT/VBS/XLS
    * Following types in a PPT file
    - COM/DOC/EXE/PPT/VBS/XLS
    * Following types in a RTF file
    - COM/DOC/EXE/PPT/VBS/XLS
    * Following types in a SHS file
    - COM/DOC/EXE/PPT/VBS/XLS
    * Following types in a XLS file
    - COM/DOC/EXE/PPT/VBS/XLS
    * Following types in a DOC-MSO file
    - COM/DOC/EXE/PPT/VBS/XLS
    * Following types in a PPT-MSO file
    - COM/DOC/EXE/PPT/VBS/XLS
    * Following types in a XLS-MSO file
    - COM/DOC/EXE/PPT/VBS/XLS
    * Following types as MSO file
    - DOC/PPT/XLS

    Password protected OLE-Objects
    * Office '95: DOC / XLS
    * Office '97: DOC / XLS
    * Office 2000: DOC / XLS

  5. #5
    Joined
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    70

    Angry Re: My Anti-virus Program Comparison Analysis

    Why Is NOD32 N/A . That sucks. Do you Need a Sample. Get Your FREE 30 days NOD 32 At http://www.eset.com AND TEST IT TO PLEASE . I WOULD BUY NOTHING ELSE!!!! I dont Sell ANY THING BUT NOD 32!!!LOLOLOLOL thanks. oh Yes did I say that Microsoft has renewed there NOD32 for the last 6 year's. Not that Am trying to TOOT my horn but BEEEEEP
    Last edited by drax; 12-31-2004 at 09:44 PM.

  6. #6
    Joined
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    206

    Re: My Anti-virus Program Comparison Analysis

    Quote Originally Posted by drax
    Why Is NOD32 N/A . That sucks. Do you Need a Sample. Get Your FREE 30 days NOD 32 At http://www.eset.com AND TEST IT TO PLEASE . I WOULD BUY NOTHING ELSE!!!! I dont Sell ANY THING BUT NOD 32!!!LOLOLOLOL thanks. oh Yes did I say that Microsoft has renewed there NOD32 for the last 6 year's. Not that Am trying to TOOT my horn but BEEEEEP
    Sad to say, it is because this product is not tested in the particular experiment, so that's why you see a "N/A".

    But I can show you more information about the product you wish to know.
    Tell me if you want.

    I know Microsft has purchased GIANT (anti-spyware) and RAV (anti-virus) recently.
    Happy New Year. :P
    Last edited by Wai_Wai; 01-01-2005 at 11:41 AM.

  7. #7
    Joined
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Vacaville, Ca.
    Age
    58
    Posts
    3,792

    Re: My Anti-virus Program Comparison Analysis

    Very well done, Thanks Wai Wai.

  8. #8
    Joined
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    206

    Re: My Anti-virus Program Comparison Analysis

    Quote Originally Posted by frosty22
    Very well done, Thanks Wai Wai.
    Thanks to hear that
    By the way, any suggestion on my report?

  9. #9
    Joined
    Mar 2003
    Posts
    4,555

    Re: My Anti-virus Program Comparison Analysis

    Viruses are getting MUCH more complex in recent months.

    Personally, I won't waste another dime on either McAfee or Norton again.
    Have seen occasions with both where Trojans got through and infected the
    system and the AV app didn't even know it. You could even find additions to
    the registry which fooled the auto-update with a feedback loop to the
    local machine file. Therefore new viruses were completly free to invade.
    ~ SolTek SL-75FRN2-RL (nForce2) = 10x230fsb, 2.0/2/2/11 DC
    ~ 1800+ DLT3C/VPMW/0307 ~ Leadtek 6800nu (16/6 400/825)
    ~ PCP&C 425deluxe ~ Gskill "LE" 1gb TCCD/437

  10. #10
    Joined
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    206

    Re: My Anti-virus Program Comparison Analysis

    Quote Originally Posted by Susquehannock
    Viruses are getting MUCH more complex in recent months.

    Personally, I won't waste another dime on either McAfee or Norton again.
    Have seen occasions with both where Trojans got through and infected the
    system and the AV app didn't even know it. You could even find additions to
    the registry which fooled the auto-update with a feedback loop to the
    local machine file. Therefore new viruses were completly free to invade.
    Exactly. Virus is always cleverer than AV porgram

    That's why no one single AV program can protect you from all virus, not to say some new and even unknown viruses.

    Let me take some examples from http://www.av-comparatives.org/

    As to ITW virus, the reuslt is quite satisifed but no Av program can score full. It is sad but painfully true. No AV program can protect you from any virus attack. Among the most famous brands, the worst can be about 8X% which is rather unacceptable; the best being 99.XX% (nearly 100%) which is very excellent indeed.

    As to Zoo virus, the result may be shocking to most of you. Even among the most famous brands, they can score as low as 4% but no higher than 50%.

  11. #11
    Joined
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    206

    Re: My Anti-virus Program Comparison Analysis

    If you wish to have the best AV protection, there're 3 steps you need to do:
    - frequently update your anti-virus program
    - frequently run full-system scan on your computer (eg weekly)
    - frequently do online scans from other anti-virus companies (eg monthly, or even weekly)

    Scanning with more than 1 AV program can be helpful. I was infected by 1 virus long time ago, maybe 5 years ago. Norton couldn't fix my files. I went to TrendMicro and scan the infected files. I scanned some more, and it was able to repair them.


    Apart from getting some good AV portection & scanning, having a good knowledge of using your computer is more important.

    Prevention is better than cure. If you know how to use your computer safely, your chance of getting a virus or anything harmful is much reduced.

  12. #12
    Joined
    Mar 2003
    Posts
    4,555

    Re: My Anti-virus Program Comparison Analysis

    Awesome thread here Wai Wai. Many will benefit from it I'm sure.

    Have you ever used Panda Scan? On two occasions it was able to find malicious
    entries that Norton, AVG, and Trend Micro did not. Free Panda doesn't
    delete them, but it does give you the locations so you can seach with RegEdit
    and do it manually.

    Seems I read recently that some estimates say many as 40% of all the personal
    computers on the net are infected and don't even know it. Scary stuff!

  13. #13
    Joined
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Vacaville, Ca.
    Age
    58
    Posts
    3,792

    Re: My Anti-virus Program Comparison Analysis

    Quote Originally Posted by Susquehannock
    Awesome thread here Wai Wai. Many will benefit from it I'm sure.

    Have you ever used Panda Scan? On two occasions it was able to find malicious
    entries that Norton, AVG, and Trend Micro did not. Free Panda doesn't
    delete them, but it does give you the locations so you can seach with RegEdit
    and do it manually.

    Seems I read recently that some estimates say many as 40% of all the personal
    computers on the net are infected and don't even know it. Scary stuff!
    I use the Panda scan alot. It always seems to find somethings the others don't, But I'm curious as to whether sometimes it's a false positive.

  14. #14
    Joined
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    206

    Re: My Anti-virus Program Comparison Analysis

    Quote Originally Posted by frosty22
    I use the Panda scan alot. It always seems to find somethings the others don't, But I'm curious as to whether sometimes it's a false positive.
    In one of the test, the number of false positives:
    - Best Score 0 (total: 6230)
    AVG (Grisoft) 13
    AVP (Kaspersky) 9
    F-Prot 13
    AntiVir (H+BEDV) 31
    Panda 6
    NAV (Symantec) 0
    PC-cillin (TrendMicro) 11
    Virus control (Norman) 10
    VirusScan (McAfee) 0

    (Don't treat the result absolutely)

  15. #15
    Joined
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    206

    Re: My Anti-virus Program Comparison Analysis

    Quote Originally Posted by Susquehannock
    Awesome thread here Wai Wai. Many will benefit from it I'm sure.

    Have you ever used Panda Scan? On two occasions it was able to find malicious
    entries that Norton, AVG, and Trend Micro did not. Free Panda doesn't
    delete them, but it does give you the locations so you can seach with RegEdit
    and do it manually.

    Seems I read recently that some estimates say many as 40% of all the personal
    computers on the net are infected and don't even know it. Scary stuff!
    Good to hear that Panda can catch malware on 2 occassions.
    But did you check whether they are false positives or not at that time?

    As to anti-virus protection of Panda, I post this result as a starter (don't treat the result absolutely):

    1. Kaspersky Personal Pro version 5.0.20 - 99.28%
    2. AVK version 15.0.5 - 97.93%
    3. F-Secure 2005 version 5.10.450 - 97.55%
    4. eScan Virus Control version 2.6.518.8 - 96.75%
    5. Norton Corporate version 9.0.3.1000 - 91.64%
    6. Norton Professional version 2005 - 91.57%
    7. McAfee version 9.0.10 - 89.75%
    8. Virus Chaser version 5.0 - 88.31%
    9. BitDefender version 8.0.137 - 88.13%
    10. CyberScrub version 1.0 - 87.87%
    11. Panda Platinum 2005 version 9.01.02 - 87.75%
    12. Arcavir - 87.73%
    13. MKS_VIR 2005 - 87.70%
    14. RAV version 8.6.105 - 87.26%
    15. F-Prot version 3.16b - 87.07%
    16. Panda Titanium version 4.01.02 - 86.27%
    17. PC-Cillin 2005 version 12.1.1034 - 85.98%
    18. Nod32 version 2.12.4 - 85.66%
    19. Command version 4.92.7 - 84.92%
    20. AntiVir version 6.30.00.17 - 84.50%
    21. Avast version 4.6.623 - 79.65%
    22. Dr. Web version 4.32b - 78.71%
    23. Sophos Sweep version 3.91 - 73.79%
    24. UNA version 1.83 - 73.49%
    25. BullGuard version 4.5 - 70.24%
    26. Norman version 5.80.05 - 65.32%
    27. Ikarus version 5.16 - 60.97%
    28. AVG version 7.0.308 - 54.07%
    29. E-Trust version 7.0.5.3 - 52.35%
    30. ZoneAlarm with VET Antivirus version 5.5.062.011 - 52.32%

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •