Hello rick, On Sat, 9 Nov 2002 06:26:04 -0500 GMT (09/11/02, 18:26 +0700 GMT), rick wrote:
> Ok I am new so I will make this as painless as possible. Why do people > use this AVG product? I have seen quite a few threads about it and am > concerned for my fellow TheBat! users. Since I am looking for a new AV software now, your posting caught my attention. > Please point your browser to the very reputable/independent virus > testing lab - virus bulletin >http://www.virusbtn.com/vb100/archives/products.xml?avg.xml > This lab tests virus products from all vendors who wish to have their > product tested. If you notice AVG has failed all the tests except 1. > This is obviously not a very good product. I am not so sure about "reputable", as I have never heard of them before. Be that as it may (I may be ignorant and that's why I never heard of them before), I clicked through a number of results. I turns out that there is no good product in the market. Even F-Secure has 9 passes against 11 failures. PC-Cillin appears to be unusable (well, it was one of the best when I bought it, as I checked several such comparing test sites before purchase, so I don't know what happened). Well, NOD32 appears to be a good choice, if we can trust this site. > The eicar-file is not a virus. Therefore many security professionals > would state that not detecting a non-virus is a good thing. Many may say that, but not a single professional would make such a statement. It was created in order to test AV software, short of sending a "live" malicious virus. Any virus scanner that fails this test, is likely to fail detection of malware as well. Why? By agreement, this Eicar "virus" definition is in the database of any good AV software along with the virus definitions of tens of thousands of "real" viruses. If this is not detected, why would you think that a real virus will be detected? > False positives will cause a failure at the prestigious virus > bulletin testing labs. That's correct, and that is why Norton has lost a lot of their reputation. But detecting Eicar is not a "false positive". > I would be more concerned that AVG failed all but 1 test than I > would that it failed to detect the eicar-file. I tried to find out what exactly they tested, but couldn't find it. Other sites will state "this AV scanner detected 200 of 215 viruses, that software detected only 180 out of the same set" or such. the website you mentioned doesn't seem to disclose their methodology. > Again, not trying to step on peoples toes but simply wish to provide > my fellow TheBat! users with some accurate information. Thanks, this is very much appreciated. I just wonder how accurate the website is that you seem to trust so much. Kindly enlighten me as to their reputability. > I would recommend you to use Nod32. It has the best results of any > product tested at virus bulletin. I use Nod32 in conjunction with > TheBat! and I have never had one virus problem. No doubt. What do other tests say about NOD32 in comparison? I am really interested. -- Cheers, Thomas. Moderator der deutschen The Bat! Beginner Liste. Es war eine machtvolle Demonstration. Der Marktplatz war voller Menschen. In den Nebenstrassen pflanzten sich Maenner und Frauen fort. Message reply created with The Bat! 1.62/Beta7 under Chinese Windows 98 4.10 Build 2222 A using an AMD Athlon K7 1.2GHz, 128MB RAM ________________________________________________ Current version is 1.61 | "Using TBUDL" information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
