AV-C - Removal Test Report

I agree with the last 2 posters 100%. Prevention & detection is more important. Plus there are plenty of specialized tools available for malware removal if your AV fails you.
Also I know a lot of people were waiting for this test, and some people were not happy with their performance of their favorite AV. But is this test even realistic in the real world? Since it's impossible to test all malware samples it's possible that an AV that did not perform well with these 10 samples could do a better job with 10 different samples.

 

I am wondering if Bitdefender's bootable rescue CD with updated definitions would have the same results as the program itself. I wonder also if DR Web's CureIT and Dr Web's Live CD would give the same results as their program.

 

The fact that DW did not block it automatically, thats a big FAIL in my book.

 

Well, I'm afraid you're mistaken. DW is supposed to work that way. It groups the applications on your computer in two groups: [1] Trusted and, [2] Untrusted. Browsers like Mozilla Firefox or Internet Explorer that “face” the Internet are classified as Untrusted by DW. Therefore, ANY file you download using any browser will automatically be classified as Untrusted. Should you want to execute that Untrusted downloaded file, DW will let you run it as Untrusted which means it will NOT interact or damage your system in any way.

You want to get rid of that nasty file once it's running on your PC? Well, that's what the Stop Attack button is for.


I hope to have clarified this misconception for you.



Thanks

 

avast! never stood out on cleaning capabilities. In my opinion they should first get their detection back on track, in tests they seem to be somewhat lacking since this summer/spring.

 

I agree that a sample set of 8, can raise eyebrows from a statistical point of view. Even if the sample set has been chosen with care.

 

Ditto! +1

 

Well let see if anyone can infect their PCs with thousands of virii and try to clean it; then let's see if statistics would care when it comes to testing. Any PC would crash under such malware heavy load. AVC samples are quite satiscally sound within a cleaning context.

Thanks.

 

Its pretty sad to see LockEmAll is still leads the way even though its been quite a while. I too dealt with this program few days back whilst cleaning one of my friends computer, still bootable cd couldn't delete all the leftovers or restore back to clean state

 

I agree that the test is really not the final word on protection ability due to the number and type of samples. An additional thing of note is that some companies offer additional tools, support and services for proper cleanup if a serious infection is detected.

For example, Trend's Damage Cleanup Engine: http://downloadcenter.trendmicro.com/index.php?clk=tab_pattern&clkval=11&regs=NABU&lang_loc=1

It offers specific routines for cleaning widespread and known malware and is updated separately from their desktop products.

However, most users will not be aware of such options and for that reason the test is still relevant.

 

Try to test against Sandboxie and AppGuard separately these 4 ransoms, if you catch time (of course you would need a bit of configuration, of course).

 

Yeh. I my self having strange experience with ESET. It detected Virus as PUA??
Thank God i have WSA2012 (Using it for detection)

 

At least Eset detected it in some manner.

 

Many AVs detect adwares/keygens/cracks as virus or some other names but actually its PUA. Better each of them has different perspective and have different naming conventions

 

you cannot use a crashing environment as the last word for testing the vendors removal quality.
AV-C also uses rescue CD's.

 

MS goes better and better. Promising trend