latest detection rate URL for AV programs? best SECOND malwareengine, stand-alone is?

[RayLopez99]

First question: I get these URLs off the net, and I have one from PC
Magazine's review from last year and another older one, that ranks how
various AV programs detect various malware. Generally the industry
paid-for versions that are #1 are Norton and Kaspersky (though
Kaspersky only detected 29%% of keyloggers and 67% of Rootkits, which
was worse than the base line 'free' version of MSFT Security
Essentials, at 50% and 89% respectively, and Norton at 86% and 89%).
Free versions that are right up there include AVG Anti-Virus Free
2011, Ad-Aware Free Internet Security 9.0, F-Secure, Double Anti-Spy
Professional, Comodo (about the same as Microsoft Security Essentials
actually, which is 'average'). I could not find Avast! or Avira in
this graph I'm looking at now but in another URL that I dont' have
before me it was right up there at least average or slightly above
average, which is fine with me.

First question for the group: the latest URL for AV comparisons and
detection rates is where? If it's handy. Like I said I got this URL
from PC Mag and just copied and pasted the conclusions.

Second question: what is a good SECOND malware engine that will not
interfere with your TSR first malware engine? I've heard Malwarebytes
anti-malware is good, but the one time I used it, a week ago,when I
had a known virus, it failed to detect the virus (which Kaspersky's
Live CD found). I am interested in a free version--is Ad-Aware Free
any good? Is it good as a second program or will it clash with what I
am using now (on various machines I have Comodo, Avast!, Avira and
Microsoft Security Essentials, all running Windows 7).

RL

 

[FromTheRafters]

First question: I get these URLs off the net, and I have one from PC
Magazine's review from last year and another older one, that ranks how
various AV programs detect various malware. Generally the industry
paid-for versions that are #1 are Norton and Kaspersky (though
Kaspersky only detected 29%% of keyloggers and 67% of Rootkits, which
was worse than the base line 'free' version of MSFT Security
Essentials, at 50% and 89% respectively, and Norton at 86% and 89%).

Yeah, it has become difficult to sort the best detection rates now that
all types of malware are included in the test set. It was much easier to
get clearer results when anti*virus* programs were tested against
*viruses* and anything else was just gravy. Now the gravy has become the
most prevalent threat and weak anti*virus* programs can shine like diamonds.

Free versions that are right up there include AVG Anti-Virus Free
2011, Ad-Aware Free Internet Security 9.0, F-Secure, Double Anti-Spy
Professional, Comodo (about the same as Microsoft Security Essentials
actually, which is 'average'). I could not find Avast! or Avira in
this graph I'm looking at now but in another URL that I dont' have
before me it was right up there at least average or slightly above
average, which is fine with me.

First question for the group: the latest URL for AV comparisons and
detection rates is where? If it's handy. Like I said I got this URL
from PC Mag and just copied and pasted the conclusions.

Something like this:

http://www.av-comparatives.org/

There used to be some other very respectable tests back when it was for
viruses only, don't know about now though.

Second question: what is a good SECOND malware engine that will not
interfere with your TSR first malware engine?

TSR is antiquated, but I know what you mean.

I've heard Malwarebytes
anti-malware is good, but the one time I used it, a week ago,when I
had a known virus, it failed to detect the virus (which Kaspersky's
Live CD found).

MBAM isn't designed specifically for viruses, but it very good at doing
what it *is* designed for - and will catch *some* viruses too. It is
great when coupled with a program designed to catch viruses very well
and gravy too.

I am interested in a free version--is Ad-Aware Free
any good? Is it good as a second program or will it clash with what I
am using now (on various machines I have Comodo, Avast!, Avira and
Microsoft Security Essentials, all running Windows 7).

Can't help you there, but I know that SUPERAntiSpyware and MBAM are very
good and play well with anti*virus* programs.

 

[David H. Lipman]

Yeah, it has become difficult to sort the best detection rates now that all types of
malware are included in the test set. It was much easier to get clearer results when
anti*virus* programs were tested against *viruses* and anything else was just gravy. Now
the gravy has become the most prevalent threat and weak anti*virus* programs can shine
like diamonds.


Something like this:

http://www.av-comparatives.org/

There used to be some other very respectable tests back when it was for viruses only,
don't know about now though.

TSR is antiquated, but I know what you mean.


MBAM isn't designed specifically for viruses, but it very good at doing what it *is*
designed for - and will catch *some* viruses too. It is great when coupled with a
program designed to catch viruses very well and gravy too.


Can't help you there, but I know that SUPERAntiSpyware and MBAM are very good and play
well with anti*virus* programs.

LOL I see who you replied to.

What he doesn't realize is that my Muti-AV Scaing Tool fits the query of "what is a good
SECOND malware engine that will not interfere with your TSR first malware engine?"

It's too bloody bad he considered it "vanity ware" in the past. < ROFLOL >

 

[FromTheRafters]

LOL I see who you replied to.

What he doesn't realize is that my Muti-AV Scaing Tool fits the query of "what is a good
SECOND malware engine that will not interfere with your TSR first malware engine?"

It's too bloody bad he considered it "vanity ware" in the past.< ROFLOL>

I think he has gotten over that. )

I think he wants a "real time" antimalware to supplement his "real time"
antivirus, not an "on demand" antivirus/antimalware to supplement.

IOW he realizes that his "on-access" antivirus/antimalware program may
be interfered with if he uses another antimalware that competes for the
same resources and wants something that is better at *malware* than the
AV program he has is.

He may be starting to realize at least one of the reasons AV and AM need
to be treated differently. AM mostly depends on the quickness of the
definitions being made available, while AV needs to take a longer time
in the development of a signature that covers all forms of each distinct
virus or perhaps even run the virus in an emulated environment to expose
the virus body to be searched.

Anyway, you would be more familiar with the brands of antimalware
programs he mentioned than I would be. I only recently found out that
Ad-Aware, and Comodo did viruses at all.

 

[David H. Lipman]

I think he has gotten over that. )

I think he wants a "real time" antimalware to supplement his "real time" antivirus, not
an "on demand" antivirus/antimalware to supplement.

IOW he realizes that his "on-access" antivirus/antimalware program may be interfered
with if he uses another antimalware that competes for the same resources and wants
something that is better at *malware* than the AV program he has is.

He may be starting to realize at least one of the reasons AV and AM need to be treated
differently. AM mostly depends on the quickness of the definitions being made available,
while AV needs to take a longer time in the development of a signature that covers all
forms of each distinct virus or perhaps even run the virus in an emulated environment to
expose the virus body to be searched.

Anyway, you would be more familiar with the brands of antimalware programs he mentioned
than I would be. I only recently found out that Ad-Aware, and Comodo did viruses at all.

Lavasoft Ad-aware was very quietly sold off and most of the employees, let-go. Corrine
blogged about it.

http://securitygarden.blogspot.com/2011/05/surprisingly-little-information-on.html

 

[FromTheRafters]

Lavasoft Ad-aware was very quietly sold off and most of the employees, let-go. Corrine
blogged about it.

http://securitygarden.blogspot.com/2011/05/surprisingly-little-information-on.html

Yeah, I caught that post. The workers are almost always the last to know
what is actually going on in the company.

 

[Peter Foldes]

Yeah, I caught that post. The workers are almost always the last to know what is
actually going on in the company.

David and FTR

Just for your info

Lulu Software here in Montreal has filed for Bankruptcy Protection under the
Canadian Bankruptcy Act on June 08 of this year


JS

 

[David H. Lipman]

David and FTR

Just for your info

Lulu Software here in Montreal has filed for Bankruptcy Protection under the Canadian
Bankruptcy Act on June 08 of this year

Arggggggggggggggggghhhhhhhhhhh

 

[RayLopez99]

Yeah, it has become difficult to sort the best detection rates now that
all types of malware are included in the test set. It was much easier to
get clearer results when anti*virus* programs were tested against
*viruses* and anything else was just gravy. Now the gravy has become the
most prevalent threat and weak anti*virus* programs can shine like diamonds.



Something like this:

http://www.av-comparatives.org/

OK thanks, bookmarked.

There used to be some other very respectable tests back when it was for
viruses only, don't know about now though.




TSR is antiquated, but I know what you mean.

What do they say now, young fella?

MBAM isn't designed specifically for viruses, but it very good at doing
what it *is* designed for - and will catch *some* viruses too. It is
great when coupled with a program designed to catch viruses very well
and gravy too.


Can't help you there, but I know that SUPERAntiSpyware and MBAM are very
good and play well with anti*virus* programs.

I see. Perhaps, given this insight, I'll give MBAM another chance.
Thanks.

RL

 

[RayLopez99]

RayLopez99 wrote:

Something like this:

http://www.av-comparatives.org/

I noticed that Norton is not on the list, and F-Secure and Symantec do
well on the tests, with some minor fluctuations. Googling Symantec I
find that they make Norton!

On the fluctuations: could it be that the same PC running the same
tests will sometimes accidentally skip (or not completely check) an
infected file? Perhaps because it was under load and doing so much
multitasking? Curious as to why there are fluctuations month to month
in the score.

RL

 

[Nobody > (Revisited)]

Googling Symantec I
find that they make Norton!

What cave have you been in?

Symantec bought out Pete Norton in 1990.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norton_Utilities.

Symantec borged out most of the old big-name "DOS Utilities". They
snagged Central Point Software ("PCTools") in 1994 as well.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Point_Software

Regarding http://www.av-comparatives.org/

Personal opinion is to take their results with a fair dose of salt.
Their reputation now is pretty good, but they've gone thru some rather
bleak periods in the past. At one point, there was a very high suspicion
of them being paid shills for Symantec.

In reality, there's not a real wide gap between any of the better AV
apps. With the "Internet Push" updates of both engines and datafiles,
all of them are constantly changing too fast to state than any ONE app
is the "best" at any given time.

What I've concluded on choosing:

*Every* security app has various warts. Scan times, warning popups,
boot/shutdown times, performance hits, false pos/negs, areas not
covered, price, compatibility, usability for the end-user, etc. An app
can have stellar detection, but if you piss-off the end-user enough with
a wart that gets in their way of doing things, they *will* disable it
somehow (and usually forgetting to turn it back on). A disabled security
app is worse than none at all!



--
"Shit this is it, all the pieces do fit.
We're like that crazy old man jumping
out of the alleyway with a baseball bat,
saying, "Remember me motherfucker?"
Jim “Dandy” Mangrum

 

[FromTheRafters]

OK thanks, bookmarked.



What do they say now, young fella?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terminate_and_Stay_Resident

[...]

 

[FromTheRafters]

I noticed that Norton is not on the list, and F-Secure and Symantec do
well on the tests, with some minor fluctuations. Googling Symantec I
find that they make Norton!

On the fluctuations: could it be that the same PC running the same
tests will sometimes accidentally skip (or not completely check) an
infected file? Perhaps because it was under load and doing so much
multitasking? Curious as to why there are fluctuations month to month
in the score.

Methodology:

http://www.av-comparatives.org/images/stories/test/docs/methodology.pdf

Also you may want to note in the FAQ portion of the above document

11) Can you name me six other established testing institutions (apart
AV-Comparatives) that you consider noteworthy.

 

[RayLopez99]

RayLopez99 wrote:

11) Can you name me six other established testing institutions (apart
AV-Comparatives) that you consider noteworthy.

I also found this independent testing site: http://www.av-test.org/

I am leaning towards buying F-Secure. Coincidentally their website
says they are 'officially' rated #1 (I only found this out after
coming to the same conclusion). They also seem to have jacked up
their price towards the high end of $60 for three pcs per year. But
they are noticeably better than the freeware AV programs I'm using
now, but not by a landslide.

RL