AV-programs tested against the new wmf-hole-NOD among the best

German av-test.org has tested the major players in AV business against
the new Windows wmf-hole.
Nod32 was one of those who stopped all the tested 206 variants
Here are the results (in parenthesis the missed variants)
Perfect protection:
BitDefender
Computer Associates eTrust - VET
F-Secure
Kaspersky Lab
McAfee
Eset Nod32
Microsoft OneCare
Sophos
Symantec

Inadequate protection:
Alwil Avast (1)
Clam AntiVirus (1)
Aladdin eSafe (1)
Fortinet (18 )
AntiVir (24)
eTrust - INO (25)
Panda (25)
Ikarus (26)
Norman (26)
Ewido (47)
AVG (59)
VirusBuster (61)
QuickHeal (63)
Trend Micro (63)
Dr Web (93)
VBA32 (110)
Authentium Command (119)
F-Prot (119)

 

Re: AV-programs tested agaisnt the new wmf-hole-NOD among the best

Handling this thing required a code change in F-PROT (just a DEF update wouldn't do). We have released a new version (3.16e) yesterday. It should detect this exploit just fine.

Regards,
Vesselin

 

Re: AV-programs tested agaisnt the new wmf-hole-NOD among the best

Weird, Alwil guys released generic signature two days ago if i remember correctly. I guess this test missed this signature update

 

Re: AV-programs tested agaisnt the new wmf-hole-NOD among the best

I think AVG is weird too, it should not miss too much like this (59 samples).

I don't know but I think AVG has a problem in its engine to detect this exploit, 2-3 days ago I noticed a very big updates from AVG Free so I think Grisoft released something (probably new engine) in order to detect this exploit.

 

Re: AV-programs tested agaisnt the new wmf-hole-NOD among the best

i wouldnt call the below products inadequate since they only missed one file which can easily be fixed.

Alwil Avast (1)
Clam AntiVirus (1)
Aladdin eSafe (1)
Fortinet (1

 

Re: AV-programs tested agaisnt the new wmf-hole-NOD among the best

Indeed, avast with latest definitions catches all of them. The test was performed earlier.

 

Re: AV-programs tested agaisnt the new wmf-hole-NOD among the best

you might want to add pc tools antivirus in 100% detection of wmf

 

Re: AV-programs tested agaisnt the new wmf-hole-NOD among the best

Not a complete surprise as this is a KAV clone

 

Re: AV-programs tested agaisnt the new wmf-hole-NOD among the best

MS already released patch for WMF vulnerability. Please use Windows Update tool...

 

Re: AV-programs tested agaisnt the new wmf-hole-NOD among the best

Code:

 Nod32 was one of those who stopped all the tested 206 variants 

Jaska yeah i would really see this link by myself could you then give us the direct link to this article please?

 

Re: AV-programs tested agaisnt the new wmf-hole-NOD among the best

I found this information from a appreciated Finnish
computer magazines daily news. I did'n find the original test from http://www.av-test.org/ site. Maybe they are giving the information to magazines before their own website.

 

Re: AV-programs tested agaisnt the new wmf-hole-NOD among the best

And how protected were AV users before any of the signature based AVs updated as opposed to virtualisation software users.

No signatures = no protection.

 

Re: AV-programs tested agaisnt the new wmf-hole-NOD among the best

ahaa from a Finland magazine.
but also those antiviruses protected against all those WMF:
BitDefender
Computer Associates eTrust - VET
F-Secure
Kaspersky Lab
McAfee
Microsoft OneCare
Sophos
Symantec
incl. Nod32

 

Re: AV-programs tested agaisnt the new wmf-hole-NOD among the best

Updated Anti-virus Detection Stats


We have an update to the anti-virus detection stats for WMF variants. There’s both good news and not so good news in it.


AV-Test tested 206 variants and the following products detected all 206:

Avast!
BitDefender
ClamAV
eSafe
eTrust-VET
eTrust-VET (BETA)
F-Secure
F-Secure (BETA)
Kaspersky
McAfee
McAfee (BETA)
Nod32
OneCare
Panda (BETA)
Sophos
Symantec
Symantec (BETA)


Unfortunately some, including some well-known ones, missed quite a few. These are the products that missed some and the number they missed:


Fortinet 18
Fortinet (BETA) 18
AntiVir 24
eTrust-INO 25
eTrust-INO (BETA) 25
Panda 25
Ikarus 26
Norman 26
Ewido 47
AVG 59
Trend Micro (BETA) 60
VirusBuster 61
QuickHeal 63
Trend Micro 63
Dr Web 93
VBA32 110
Command 119
F-Prot 119


(BETA) refers to beta definitions, as opposed to the release-level ones.

http://blog.ziffdavis.com/seltzer/archive/2006/01/04/39774.aspx

 

Re: AV-programs tested agaisnt the new wmf-hole-NOD among the best

Kaspersky didn't protect 100% the first day, only after a few patches. So don't count too much on those results as they are all an updated version of the original test.

 

Re: AV-programs tested agaisnt the new wmf-hole-NOD among the best

Explain please if you can, why the test's made after the first shouldn't be trusted, after all they are made by the same tester?

 

Re: AV-programs tested agaisnt the new wmf-hole-NOD among the best

Results aren't that important itself but they show how flexible are specific AV engines. For example avast! didn't need any program update to cover this WMF (just signature) while F-Prot required program and signature update to correctly cover it. Though this shows just one aspect of the engine, not entire capability...

 

Code:

  AV-programs tested against the new wmf-hole-NOD among the best  

NOD32 among the best to detect wmf-hole,
also etrust, f-secure, bitdefender and some other also was the best to detect it 100%.
i really like to know and to see those article's there you found that NOD was the best of all, or are you just writing it by yourself ?

 

NOD was not the "best of all", but it had 100% detection/protection just like some of the other vendors had. A few had 75% protection, this included Kaspersky as well. However in the next updated test, Kaspersky had 100% detection/protection.

 

KIS2006 slept through almost all the tests over at dslreports while Bit Defender was so aggressive that I couldn't do any of the tests. KIS never let out a peep on scanning of the zip files of the tests and the later repeated updated zips of the tests while BD insisted on deleting EACH TEST within the zipped folder. BD would not allow me to unzip and actually detected all nine tests individually. KIS, even after unzipping, missed most of the tests. I now have BD Pro. I did have BD free for a year and one-half but after seeing how it handled this situation, I think it is right at the top of the AVs and actually above KIS and NOD32 because it doesn't cripple my internet speed like both the others do.

 

BD seldom gets mentioned when the question arises as to best AV, but it always shows up in the top few when tested.

I have used it for a year in the paid version, and see no reason to change with each test that is published. In fact BD seems to be getting better all the time. I just renewed mine, and appreciate the fact that they permit me to use the same key for my second home computer, at no additional cost.

I think BD is a much overlooked top AV. The price is also less than the other top AVs I think.

Jerry

 

I've always held BitDefender in a very high regard, and it was the toughest choice for me to choose between BitDefender and NOD32 last year, if you remember.

But does Softwin really allow you to use a single license of BitDefender on two PCs? Wow!

 

HI Firecat,
Yes they do, and I was pleasantly surprised. It gives me another reason to stay with BD. It also runs well on my machine.

This AM I downloaded and installed BD9, and entered the key. It worked, but I had not uninstalled Avast. I had disabled it, but that was not enough, and whe I rebooted the programs would not all reload, and it froze to a large extent. I finally had to turn off the power, rebooted with the same result. The next time I uninstalled Avast, rebooted, and all is well.

Two AVs always cause me problems. I knew of the problems, but thought I could get by with disabling one until I had the other installed and working. I was wrong.
Still living and still learning - albeit slowly.

Regards,
Jerry

 

I had my choise for BitDefender, and never regret. It's good software, with great detection. The interface is also absolutly fitting my needs. Clean simple, but still offering lots of options. And all this for a price wich can't be beat.

About using a single license on two computers, I'm not so sure about that. I will try to find out more about it