Slashdot Mirror
Test of 16 Anti-Virus Products Says None Rates "Very Good"
An anonymous reader writes "AV-Comparative recently released the results of a malware removal test in which they evaluated 16 anti-virus software solutions. The test focused only on the malware removal/cleaning capabilities, therefore all the samples used were ones that the tested anti-virus products were able to detect. The main question was if the products were able to successfully remove malware from an already infected/compromised system. None of the products performed at a level of 'very good' in malware removal or removal of leftovers, based on those 10 samples."
Isn't this an example of security through obscurity? Maybe an example of how virus authors subscribe to the pareto principle...
OK, if I were to rate PC speeds as "Very Good" if they exceeded 500 petaflops, none would get that rating. But it's still quite possible that the fastest ones out there would be worth having, compared to the rest.
If there are differences in performance in the products you are evaluating, your scale should reflect this. If none of the packages rate "Very Good," it's time to recalibrate the scale, unless there's a clear natural distinction between that rating and the next-lowest. Unless you're asking for perfection to achieve that rating (which is unrealistic), it doesn't really mean anything if none of the programs get your top rating.
Paleotechnologist and connoisseur of pretty shiny things.
Firstly - NO anti-virus product has "heuristics" no matter what the advertising BS tells you.
Secondly - NO commercial anti-malware software is remotely good enough to compensate for or obviate the stupidities of Microsoft, or those of Microsoft users.
Thirdly - "due diligence" is ONLY provided by using an OS that cannot be corrupted by viruses or other malware.
The solution is out there, and it doesn't involve Microsoft!