I meant to the correct executable extension based on the file content, otherwise some AVs will skip to search for some viruses that would never be in an e.g. EXE file.

That would be even better, but .exe seems to have made it a little better than with their standard package names though.

Renaming them to their "real" extensions means you have to manually search Google och rename over 40 000 files.. That would take a while, wouldn't it? But if you aren't in a hurry maybe you could do that for us?

Otherwise, let's stick to the ren *.* *.*.exe-thingy.

// Monotype

Yes, I could do that for you in less than 5 minutes. I have own tools to do that automatically based on file content. Just send me the files. I could also remove some known garbage if you want.
It would be more reliable if AV-Comparatives could test and publish the results of ClamWin; for that I would need the written permission of ClamWin and ClamAV team (I mean some representative person responsible for that).

The package can be located @ *link deleted by Monotype*

But how you should send it back to us, I have no idea. If you are having broadband, you can maybe put up a http-server. Unless of course it's unlegal to do that.

I would like to see it on AV Comparatives too. I like their tests.

Maybe alch or other represantive person + a represantive for ClamAV could give AV Comparatives this permission? However, if the results are too bad AV Comparatives won't put it online, if I remembered some admin there correctly.

EDIT: You could also put it online using bittorrent to PirateBay if you want.

// Monotype

oh, the vxh stuff :/ - I know that, it contains a lot of crud files. Probably its better you remove the link to those files from your post.
I am the Project Manager of AV-Comparatives, so if I say I would make an exception and show the results of ClamWin if ClamWin team (and also e.g. Tomasz Kojm from ClamAV) permits, I will do that (as many peoples always ask how ClamWin would score against our test-sets), even if I know that the results will not look good :/ . But even if the detection rate of ClamWin is low, it still makes sense to use it e.g. on a mailserver as second scanner, as Clam sometimes releases updates against some itw stuff faster than some other AVs. For example my university uses it as second mail scanner .

Yes. Do you know of any better downloadable package?



Personaly I combine ClamWin with VirusTotal. I scan every executable i download with VirusTotal before executing. I don't download applications very often either.

So for me I guess ClamWin is a good choice. I also like free software very much.

However, OT: Why only publish the AV:s with the greatest detection rates? You could always make two tables where one contains every AV tested and the other one only contains the greatest AV:s, if it's because you don't want to have a too large table that you don't include every AV, or only having the greatest in the table. Why not?

// Monotype

We limit the main tests to av products that detect at least 80% (some years ago it was 85%) and show a minimum of quality and usefulness to the users. For time reasons, the participants in the main test has to be limited somehow, and the best thing is to choose the best and most used ones. Products with lower rates can also get tested, but will be listed separatly in own tests. But as you can imagine, vendors of products with low detection rates do not allow us to publish the results of their product (say thx to the new media law) and are very fast in sueing someone. As we do the service for free, we do not want to get troubles or spend time in testing a product of vendors that do not stay behind the results of their products in a test and allow to show them to the public.

Is there any tests like that yet? I haven't found any. Just curious.



However, have you asked the responsible persons for ClamAV and ClamWin about an permit to show the results? What was their answer?

// Monotype

There was one last year with various AV, but we had very soon to remove it to avoid problems with some of that companies. :/
So now we do it only after we got a permission.



last year ClamAV said no. I said if they change opinion they can mail me.

Update: ClamAV said now yes (I just have to write in some comment in case I test ClamWin).
I will mail Alch during next weeks regarding a test I plan to do soon with also some other AVs.

I am all for it. I suggest you do 2 comparative tests one with clamav on unix and another one with clamwin on windows on the same data set.

I would also welcome a small sample data to test with to ensure we use the right options and get identical results.

I know this is an old thread but I have been searching for a long time on how to test AV solutions including clamwin against others. Where can you download these sample virus or virus lists to test against? Any help is greatly apprecaited as nobody seems to want to share this type of info for testing purposes.

It's hard to get copies of viruses to test if you are not a reputable virus analyst, and it can also be dangerous. There are several sites on the Web that cater to virus writers that will let you download copies of viruses and malware toolkits. Be warned, however you are apt to also get malware on your computer from them that you don't want!

AV Comparatives did a test of some of the smaller antivirus software programs, including ClamWin, not too long ago, and it is at
https://www.av-comparatives.org/seiten/ergebnisse/2ndgrouptest.pdf for you to see. You can find an on-going retrospective (new malware) test of many antivirus software programs, including Clam (Clamwin will be similar since it uses the Clam engine) at https://winnow.oitc.com/avmalwarestats.php for you to see. Clam has a retrospective rate of 15%, which beats a few of the commercial programs, but they usually get in the 20% rate at least.

Sunbelt Software also recently blogged about a German/Austrian test of AV softwre, which included Clam. The report is at https://www.sunbelt-software.com/ihs/alex/malwarereportjun3007.pdf for you to see. This test included over 800,000 viruses/malware, and Clam's detection rate was about 78%, which put it in the group with the lowest detection rate. I consider that to be pretty good, however, when you consider the budgets and employees of the commercial AV programs.

The upshot of all this is that Clam/ClamWin is getting better and it is becoming part of the AV community.

Regards,

Monotype,

I have Avira AntiVir Premium installed. I'd like to check with the virus package you mentioned. But where can I get it?

Ill support clamAV keep it up Clamteam, it this AV is great. . .

i dont care if it is bout 72 % scan rate of virus detection, this AV rock . . .



Risis -