in message
I'd like to have anyone's opinion on VirusBuster Professional
(
www.virusbuster.hu).
Is it a good solution? Or maybe something else is better (kav,
nod32,
etc.)
Until now I've used AntiVir PersonalEdition Classic but VirusBuster
is
used in the new Outpost Security Suite so I'd like to know something
more about it.
Agnitium bundles VirusBuster in their security suite. On their
product description page is a link titled "100% certified anti-virus"
that points to a page at
www.virusbuster.hu which claims awards from
various independent testing agencies. Is there a reason why, for
example, you don't trust ratings from VirusBulletin
(
http://www.virusbtn.com/index) or don't bother to read them? Just
because a product claims they have been rated by someone doesn't mean
it is true, so did you actually visit the testing sites to verify the
claims?
VirusBuster v6 failed the Aug 2007 testing at VirusBulletin (the
Agnitium suite also failed the Aug 2007 testing at VirusBulletin
because, obviously, the VirusBuster they used had failed). Overall
they have failed 17 times and passed 19 times, so they only pass half
the time. Since VirusBuster began submitting for testing at
VirusBulletin, there have been 17 times when VirusBulletin did not
submit a version for testing. So you have 17 fails, 19 passes, and 17
times they didn't submit. Then go check Kaspersky and Symantec to see
their pass/fail/nosubmit rates. Of course, these ratings are
meaningless unless you know how they are obtained (i.e., what that
pass/fail rating means) so go read how VirusBulletin tests
(
http://www.virusbtn.com/vb100/about/100procedure.xml). What might
not be evident until you read those testing procedures is that a
vendor is given up to 3 times to pass the testing. Failing means the
vendor couldn't resolve the failures. Rather than providing snapshots
of coverage for whatever version was then the current one for a
product, VB100 lets the vendors heal their failures. So failures are
more significant and should be weighted more heavily than successes.
I suspect most vendors never even bother to resubmit a fixed version
because they are busy fixing the problem and hope the next test is
more favorable. But failures not only show the vendor didn't pass the
test but that they were responsive enough to fix the failures.
