Dave's mega antivirus test

[sir_LOIN]

It's been some time since the article but a few of you asked me to test Norton 2006. It did slightly better than 2005 having found 10034 viruses. But the main thing is that it's a true ressource hog, if you want to turn your pentium 4 into a pentium 3, install this! lol

 

[SuperFarStucker]

I use AntiVir, which is resource light and works great... free too. I don't see it on the list but I know he tested it. It faired average. free-av.com

 

[sir_LOIN]

I did test it, check out reply #33 or the article http://www.overclockers.com/articles1260/

 

[UlicBelouve]

I'd like to see how the Charter High-Speed Security Suite ranks. It is developed through F-Secure, not sure if it would have the same engine/results.

You can find a 30-day version here:
http://webpages.charter.net/w123

If you want a full, PM me, and I can hook you up. If it is the same engine as F-Secure, just let me know, i will pull those results. In my mind, I doubt it will do well, but I just want to see where it sits.

 

[c627627]

Only after emailing him a couple of times back & forth did it occur to me to look up sir_LOIN and find this thread


1. Here's my understanding of sir_LOIN's article, highlights:
• Norton 2005 is ironic - much like viruses, it brings down to its knees even the fastest computers! A true resource hog!
• Kaspersky 5 revealed that when it comes to Trojans, exotic and rare viruses, Kaspersky is the leader of the pack. It found some that none of the others did.
• PC-cillin has also been doing great...although I find Kaspersky slightly better in terms of scanning.
• AntiVir PersonalEdition Classic 6 found the most viruses.

So even though sir_LOIN clearly says "AntiVir PersonalEdition Classic 6 found the most viruses," he continues to conclude that "Kaspersky is ... the best antivirus of them all. It's been doing great in my tests for years, it isn't a resource hog like Norton and it has a knack for finding things no other one does. This is the one that's running on my computers."


Well I got a hold of a lot of them and run them separately. After updating their definitions, I found out that ONLY AntiVir PersonalEdition Classic 6 found five .exe files on my computer that were:
Trojan horse TR/FlashKiller.C
Trojan horse TR/ShareAll
Trojan horse TR/Dldr.Delf.BR.3
Trojan horse TR/Dldr.Delf.BR.3
Trojan horse TR/Dldr.Delf.BR.3

Norton didn't find them, neither did Kaspersky, PC-cillin or McAfee. Neither did Trend Micro PC-cillin Online Scan. Neither did Kaspersky Online Scan. I specifically scanned the infected .exe files. This ewido suggested in this thread didn't find them either.


So this AntiVir PersonalEdition Classic 6 turns out to be really something. Granted, it would have a nice graphical user interface... if we were still using Windows 3.1. It is u-g-l-y, but damn the notion that I had Trojan horses sitting on my personal system... ugh.


2. What's the procedure to report viruses to the developers of AntiVirus software, did you do it? I cannot believe official web pages do not encourage or even have instructions for people to submit viruses those programs failed to detect. Is that not the #1 thing developers would be interested in?

I mean, look at this crap:

Me: What's the procedure to report a virus that another anti-virus program found but Norton AntiVirus failed to detect please?

Symantec: For the ultimate protection we strongly recommend that you upgrade to Norton Internet Security 2006. Norton Internet Security 2006 not only will protect you from viruses, it will also protect you from phising (sic) attacks, hackers, adware and spyware and other emerging security threats.

Symantec offers any new Norton product at a reduced upgrade price for its prior customers. To view your upgrade purchase options, please visit the Symantec Store Upgrade Center online.

Wonderful! Who said I wasn't already using the 2006 version?

3. Well I wasn't, I was using the 2003 version, I am now running AntiVir 6 on top of Norton 2003, I take it AntiVir free version doesn't have automatic updates, is that right?

When I click on a folder that contains a virus Norton can recognize, Norton reports it.
When I click on a folder that contains 5 Trojans I found, AntiVir reports it, any downside to running
both of them at the same time (AntiVir doesn't use up resources much it seems.)

4. Since Norton 2003 is the last version that doesn't require activation, and is not a resource hog to the extent of 2004-2006, lots of people continue to use it. I would be grateful if you could find out where it ranks in comparison to Virus findings to 2004-2006 versions.

5. Please find attached sir_LOIN's rankings posted clearly.