ClamWin Free Antivirus Forum Index
ClamWin Free Antivirus
Support and Discussion Forums
Reply to topic
what about neutral comparisons and reviews?
mk637


Joined: 28 Apr 2006
Posts: 1
Reply with quote
Hi,

I am using Clamwin for my two business notebooks. I am doing that out of appreciation for your work for this respectable open source software.

But, a neutral person, would look for consultation from neutral persons having compared clamwin with different av-products currently on the market. I could not find much of such reviews in the internet. Some time ago, I asked the people behind the site av-comparatives.com about clamwin and they claimed, that the clamwin developers had not permitted publicizing the results of the review. They also claimed clamwin, I should not expect a lot from clamwin.

Please read my discussion with the admin of "av-comparatives.com" here:
http://www.av-comparatives.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=247 http://www.av-comparatives.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=247

Can you explain to me the position of this "admin"?

How does clamwin compare to other commercial av-software in the market?

Thank you in advance,

Xenofon
View user's profileSend private message
Re: what about neutral comparisons and reviews?
alch
Site Admin

Joined: 27 Nov 2005
Posts: 1751
Reply with quote
mk637 wrote:

Some time ago, I asked the people behind the site av-comparatives.com about clamwin and they claimed, that the clamwin developers had not permitted publicizing the results of the review. They also claimed clamwin, I should not expect a lot from clamwin.

No one ever contacted clamwin team from av-comparatives.com site. ClamWin uses ClamAV as it's scanning engine, but we are not aware fo any communications between clamav team and the av-comparatives.

Quote:

Please read my discussion with the admin of "av-comparatives.com" here:
http://www.av-comparatives.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=247 http://www.av-comparatives.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=247

Can you explain to me the position of this "admin"?

No, I can't explain other people's positions...

Quote:

How does clamwin compare to other commercial av-software in the market?


Please see these links for more info:
http://www.clamwin.com/content/view/129/27/
http://www.clamav.net/whos.html#pagestart

We do not have a budget for marketing hence there isn't much comparative tests around. Also clamwin is a on-demand scanner and not yet a full Antivirus solution, so maybe that explains why is ti not reviewed actively.
View user's profileSend private message
Monotype


Joined: 30 Apr 2006
Posts: 62
Reply with quote
I haven't found any reviews, but when scanning a directory containing almost 40 000 viruses (one virus/file), I got this result:

Quote:

-- summary --
Known viruses: 53234
Engine version: 0.88.2
Scanned directories: 1
Scanned files: 37303
Infected files: 26998

Data scanned: 2502.86 MB
Time: 2800.437 sec (46 m 40 s)
--------------------------------------
Completed
--------------------------------------


26998 / 37303 * 100 = 72.4 % detection rate.

Maybe that will help?

// Monotype
View user's profileSend private message
alch
Site Admin

Joined: 27 Nov 2005
Posts: 1751
Reply with quote
how many of the 40000 tested are recent and active virii?
View user's profileSend private message
Slug


Joined: 22 Mar 2006
Posts: 24
Reply with quote
Monotype wrote:
I haven't found any reviews, but when scanning a directory containing almost 40 000 viruses (one virus/file), I got this result:

-- summary --
Known viruses: 53234
Engine version: 0.88.2
Scanned directories: 1
Scanned files: 37303
Infected files: 26998

Data scanned: 2502.86 MB
Time: 2800.437 sec (46 m 40 s)
--------------------------------------
Completed
--------------------------------------


26998 / 37303 * 100 = 72.4 % detection rate.

Maybe that will help?

This is useless information unless you can post comparisions of other AV products. eg AVG 90% etc.

Michael
View user's profileSend private message
Monotype


Joined: 30 Apr 2006
Posts: 62
Reply with quote
Quote:
Quote:
I haven't found any reviews, but when scanning a directory containing almost 40 000 viruses (one virus/file), I got this result:

Quote:

-- summary --
Known viruses: 53234
Engine version: 0.88.2
Scanned directories: 1
Scanned files: 37303
Infected files: 26998

Data scanned: 2502.86 MB
Time: 2800.437 sec (46 m 40 s)
--------------------------------------
Completed
--------------------------------------


26998 / 37303 * 100 = 72.4 % detection rate.

Maybe that will help?

// Monotype


This is useless information unless you can post comparisions of other AV products. eg AVG 90% etc.

Michael


Actually, I'm looking for people who wants to test their AV for viruses with the same test I did. If anybody here has Norton, NOD32, Kaspersky, F-Secure, Avira or any other wellknown AV, please PM me for a link and do a test of your own and send me your results.

Thanks.
View user's profileSend private message
budtse


Joined: 14 Jan 2006
Posts: 372
Location: Belgium
Reply with quote
Just downloaded the same virus file and the Trial of AVG Professional to scan those files.
Here's the results :

Database version : 268.5.6/340
Database date : 15/05/2006
Scanned Objects : 25,247
Infected Objects : 17,678
time : 1h23m21s (although there's no use in comparing this on different machines)

I'm not really satisfied with your calculation of the detection rate, because you divide the infected objects by the scanned objects. You should divide the infected objects found by the total number of viruses in the collection. According to the site this is 37,420.

This means detection rate for AVG = 17,678 / 37,420 = 47.24%
detection rate for ClamWin (according to your results) = 26,998 / 37,420 = 72.15%

I'll try Kaspersky next.
View user's profileSend private message
Monotype


Joined: 30 Apr 2006
Posts: 62
Reply with quote
Quote:
Just downloaded the same virus file and the Trial of AVG Professional to scan those files.
Here's the results :

Database version : 268.5.6/340
Database date : 15/05/2006
Scanned Objects : 25,247
Infected Objects : 17,678
time : 1h23m21s (although there's no use in comparing this on different machines)

I'm not really satisfied with your calculation of the detection rate, because you divide the infected objects by the scanned objects. You should divide the infected objects found by the total number of viruses in the collection. According to the site this is 37,420.

This means detection rate for AVG = 17,678 / 37,420 = 47.24%
detection rate for ClamWin (according to your results) = 26,998 / 37,420 = 72.15%


Since it says infected objects, which in my ears sounds like the number of infected files and not the number of viruses, you should dividate the number of infected files with the number of scanned files.

The best thing would be if it were 1 virus / file, but since it doesn't seem to be that way (the number of files != 37 420), I think you should divide the number of infected files with the number of scanned files.

Why did ClamWin scan 37 303 files and AVG only 25 247 ? Are you sure you had set it up to scan every file extension? (Not only exe, com, scr, e.t.c.).

However, if you use my calculation (number of infected files / number of scanned files), instead of "number of infected files / number of viruses", you get this:


AVG: 17 678 / 25 247 = 70 %

ClamWin: 26 998 / 37 303 = 72 %


Quote:
I'll try Kaspersky next.


Thanks Smile

// Monotype
View user's profileSend private message
budtse


Joined: 14 Jan 2006
Posts: 372
Location: Belgium
Reply with quote
Right.
I assumed there was a separate file for each virus, my mistake.

Concerning the files AVG skipped : I'll have to check that.

Couldn't install Kaspersky for now because the trial doesn't support Windows 2003 Server. Maybe I'll setup a WinXp or Win2000 tomorrow.
View user's profileSend private message
Monotype


Joined: 30 Apr 2006
Posts: 62
Reply with quote
Quote:
Right.
I assumed there was a separate file for each virus, my mistake.

Concerning the files AVG skipped : I'll have to check that.

Couldn't install Kaspersky for now because the trial doesn't support Windows 2003 Server. Maybe I'll setup a WinXp or Win2000 tomorrow.


I have installed NOD32 and I am scanning right now, so soon I'll give you my results.

Looking forward for your Kaspersky results, too.

// Monotype
View user's profileSend private message
Monotype


Joined: 30 Apr 2006
Posts: 62
Reply with quote
I have now tested with NOD32. The results were very shocking to me, and yes - I do have the latest definitions. And yes, I did have the highest detection depht setup, so it can't detect any more viruses in the package than it did on my scan.

I was gladly surprised about its speed, though. It scanned everything in exactly 17 minutes for me, in comparasion to ClamWin which scanned the same package in 46 minutes and 40 seconds.

Here's the result:

Number of scanned files: 40884
Number of threats found: 23916
Time of completion: 00:01:01 Total scanning time: 1020 sec (00:17:00)

Which is ~ 58 %

// Monotype
View user's profileSend private message
budtse


Joined: 14 Jan 2006
Posts: 372
Location: Belgium
Reply with quote
Forget my previous AVG results. I re-installed and played with the settings a bit (scan all files i.s.o. vulnerable files).

Results are :
Scanned Objects : 40,144 (which is more than just the files in the folder, i couldn't see which other objects were scanned, but i think these are registry settings and such).
Infected Objects : 28,917

Which leads to a detection rate of 77.51% (= 28,917 / 37,306).
View user's profileSend private message
Monotype


Joined: 30 Apr 2006
Posts: 62
Reply with quote
Quote:
Forget my previous AVG results. I re-installed and played with the settings a bit (scan all files i.s.o. vulnerable files).

Results are :
Scanned Objects : 40,144 (which is more than just the files in the folder, i couldn't see which other objects were scanned, but i think these are registry settings and such).
Infected Objects : 28,917

Which leads to a detection rate of 77.51% (= 28,917 / 37,306).


Ok, thanks. However, since NOD32 is known to have one of the best detection rates of every AV, why did it get so bad results in this test? I also checked my settings, as I told you, and yes - I do scan in the highest settings. It can impossible be set to find more than it did on my test.

Very weird.

EDIT: Whaaat? Registry settings in your folder? What are you talking about? If it's any registry file (.reg) in your folder, it is still a file. You can not have any "registered" registry settings in a folder...

EDIT 2: Hehe, I think it should be 28 917 / 40 144 = 72 %
The extra objects you were talking about is probably packed files which got unpacked by the AV. NOD32 scanned 40 884 for example. (NOD32 is also known to be very good at unpacking stuff, and yes it really seems to be it too. Only it doesn't find so much malign binaries in this package as I had expected).

// Monotype
View user's profileSend private message
IBK


Joined: 17 May 2006
Posts: 13
Location: Innsbruck (Austria)
Reply with quote
Try to rename the extensions of the files to executable extensions, then NOD32 and also the other AVs should be able to detect more.
View user's profileSend private message
Monotype


Joined: 30 Apr 2006
Posts: 62
Reply with quote
Quote:
Try to rename the extensions of the files to executable extensions, then NOD32 and also the other AVs should be able to detect more.


Done. NOD32 found 85 % now.

Detected files: 34 670
Total files: 40 885

Which is ~ 85 %

( Scanning time ~ 15 minutes )

// Monotype


EDIT: Well, to give you the updated results:

ClamWin | 26 962 | 37 305 | ~ 72 %
NOD32 | 34 670 | 40 885 | ~ 85 %

Please do the same thing and test with AVG.

I used this command to rename all the files:

ren *.* *.*.exe

You should do the same. It will take a few minutes but it's worth it..
View user's profileSend private message
what about neutral comparisons and reviews?
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
All times are GMT  
Page 1 of 3  

  
  
 Reply to topic