Re: Best AV prog for XP = KAV 5 right?

From: Howard Harris (me_at_privacy.net)
Date: 09/25/04 

Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2004 11:17:28 +0100

On Sat, 25 Sep 2004 10:26:53 +0100, Mark wrote:

> jimbo <jimbo62@spamex.com> wrote:
>
>>Mark wrote:
>>> Forget the "one that suits", or which is more "user friendly"..
>>> I've read tests, reviews and x-referenced them and KAV v5 for XP
>>> is the best one for Windows XP.
>>>
>>> So why do people argue about other progs?
>>>
>>> Cheers.
>>
>>Well, I don't know what data you use for your claims, but VB100 shows
>>Kapersky failing with WinXP Home with 23 pass and 13 fail, while NOD32
>>passes with 28 pass and 3 fail. So why don't you look at some actual
>>data before making stupid claims?
>
> Look, you wittering bell-end, if you actually had the slightest
> clue WTF you are on about you would know that VB has been found
> to publish reports that conflict with every other
> review/test/comparative group. Also, VB is a 'profit making'
> organisation with links to AV software companies' coffers, while
> the following, is not..
>
> http://www.av-comparatives.org/
> http://www.av-comparatives.org/seiten/ergebnisse_2004_08zz.php

Are you going to extend your contempt for someone who pays regard to the
Virus Bulletin tests and awards to the creator of the tests at
http://www.av-comparatives.org/ since he - posting as IBK AV Expert in a
discussion of his tests
http://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?t=45853&page=2&pp=25 - has
considerably more respect for the Virus Bulletin than you and is also far
more modest and nuanced about the value of his own tests, for which you
appear to have an infantile attachment. As he puts it in the thread to
which I have just referred:

"NOD32 is the best in (the important) VirusBulletin Tests, where it has
since years always 100% detection of ITW-viruses.
My tests are done on (not so important) Zoo-samples. No reason to be worry
if there is no 100% detection there." 

-- 
Howard
Loading