10 antivirus applications for Microsoft's Windows XP failed to meet the test standards
Major antivirus vendors fail quality test
/v3-uk/news/1949214/major-antivirus-vendors-fail-quality-test
11 Jun 2007, Tom Sanders in California , V3
Antivirus vendors Kaspersky, F-Secure and Grisoft, maker of the popular AVG application, have failed to achieve the strict Virus Bulletin 100 antivirus certification.
The trio are among 10 antivirus applications for Microsoft's Windows XP that failed to meet the test standards set by Virus Bulletin's June 2007 test. A combined 37 software products were submitted for testing.
The VB100 is known for its strict standards. The test subjects applications to a wide set of malware that spans historical and actively circulating threats.
Qualification requires that software detects all malware that circulates in the wild and does not mislabel any safe files or applications as malware, a phenomenon known as a false positive.
AVG is a popular security application in the consumer market because Grisoft offers a free basic version of the application.
The software has a reputation for solidity and good detection, but the version submitted for testing failed to detect the W32/Rbot virus.
Kaspersky also ruined its generally solid reputation by failing to detect the W32/Allaple virus, and F-Secure's consumer antivirus application missed the same online pest.
Kasperksy and AVG corrected the problem in later updates, Virus Bulletin researchers pointed out. All three vendors passed certification in last February's test for Windows Vista and a June 2006 test for Windows XP.
The same VB100 test re-established Microsoft's OneCare security suite as a capable application. The software achieved certification in June 2006, but failed last February's test on Windows Vista.
The failing products were:
- Agnitum Outpost Security Suite Pro 2007 5.1214.616
- Ahnlab V3 Internet Security 2007 7.40.1
- Doctor Web Dr.Web 4.33.3.04230
- F-Secure Protection Service for Consumers 7.00
- Grisoft AVG 7.5 Professional Edition
- Ikarus Virus Utilities 1.0.52
- iolo AntiVirus 1.1.9
- Kaspersky Anti-Virus 6.0.2.621
- NWI VirusChaser 5.0a
- Proland Protector Plus 2007
© Incisive Media Investments Limited 2010, Published by Incisive Financial Publishing Limited, Haymarket House, 28-29 Haymarket, London SW1Y 4RX, are companies registered in England and Wales with company registration numbers 04252091 & 04252093
Do you agree?
good antivirus
what really needs to be done is for vnu to create a table of the top 25 antivrus products and compare them..how do we decide which is best..what should good antivirus do?? eg scan in compressed files list 20-25 things to compare products and do it so a total newcomer to using antivirus can understand it !
Posted by D c, 13 Jun 2007
An odd story
It seems odd to highlight these vendors as having failed the test, then say that they fixed the problems, and passed tests in Feb. 2007 and June 2006.
When exactly did they fail? Did it happen this week or last year? Is any current user of their software at risk? What were the other vendors that failed? You only reported that two of the three vendors corrected the problem. Has the other failed to correct it? Did anyone call them?
This looks like a rehash of someone else's story, with no research put it into it and no useful information conveyed to the public.
Posted by Alan Meyer, 11 Jun 2007
Not very helpful
It would be far more helpful to list the vendors who did pass the test.
Posted by Phil, 12 Jun 2007
Passing AV products
For your reference, below is a list of the products that passed the VB Test for June 2007 on Windows XP.
Please note that not all AV software is submitted for testing. Also, the VB100 certification doesn't factor in usability and software might still fail to detect malware that isn't "in the wild" such as old DOS viruses. Some AV software also takes much longer to scan inside archives. If you require such granular information, you can purchase the latest issue of Virus Bulletin at http://www.virusbtn.com/
Passed:
AEC Trustport Workstation Antivirus 2.5.0.970
Alwil avast! v.4.7 Professional Edition
Authentium Command AntiVirus for Windows 4.94.5
Avira AntiVir
Bullguard v.7.0
CA AntiVirus 8.4.0.11
CA eTrust r.8.1.634.0
CAT Quick Heal 2007 v.9
eEye Blink Personal Edition 3.0.9
ESET Nod32 Antivirus System 2.70.32
Fortinet Forticlient 3.0.412
Frisk F-Prot Anti-Virus 6.0.70
Gdata AntiVirusKit 17.0.7089
K7 Total Security 2006McAfee VirusScan Enterprise v.8.5i
Microsoft Forefront Client Security 1.5.1937
Microsoft Windows Live OneCare 1.5.1890.35
Microworld eScan Internet Security for Windows 9.0.714.1
Norman Virus Control 5.90
PC Tools Antivirus 3.1.1.6
PC Tools Spyware Doctor v.5.0.0.182
Softwin Bitdefender Antivirus Plus v.10
Sophos Anti-Virus 6.54 R2
Symantec AntiVirus 1.0.0.359
Trend Micro PC-cillin Internet Security 2007 15.30.1151
VirusBuster VirusBuster Professional 2006 v.5.2
Webroot SpySweeper 5.5
Posted by Tom Sanders, 14 Jun 2007
Still good products
You have to look at the consistency of these products through VBN to truly appreciate how they perform. Failing 1 test is not a true measure of how a product protects you. It could be the first they have failed in years, but this article does not explain that side of the story. Consistency is the only factor in testing. AV-Comparatives is another great site for testing, I think even better than VBN because they attack more than ITW viruses, and do proactive testing as well as on demand.
Posted by Davey Jones, 11 Jul 2007
Biased test without a doubt
Which has its own name: Microsoft & Symantec were behind the scenes to get KAV 'failed' this test. Bah!
Posted by Truth Seeker, 20 Jul 2007