-=> Mocking Rod Fewster to Kurt Wismer <=-
   
 >> within the confines of the test then, avp would appear to be the better
 >> product... however, the test missed somewhere on the order of 5000
 >> viruses so the difference between drdollys and avp is well within the
 >> degree of error for the test...
 RF> Some antivirus companies have many in-house viruses ... viruses which
 RF> have never appeared in the wild/won't reproduce/whatever ... which
 RF> puff up their collections and make them look bigger/better/whatever to
 RF> the gullible public.
according to the current numbers being thrown around right now, the
number is fast approaching 20,000... most of them being minor variants
of course, but they are distinct from each other... this doesn't include
the intendeds as you suggest, only the ones that actually reproduce
under at least some sets of circumstances...
 RF> Secure Computing rejects these viruses as unsuitable ... ergo, they
 RF> conducted their test against just over 10,000 REAL, LIVE, VERIFIED,
 RF> and VIABLE viruses.
secure computing can't get their hands on all the viruses, no one can,
and secure computing has other things to do, they don't just rate av
products... in fact their test results are themselves a product which
they are unlikely to point out deficiencies in to their customers...
i would suggest that the reason they only used just over 10,000 viruses
is not exactly what they say it is...
further, secure computing have not taken a look at dssl's zoo and said
"these are good, these aren't" they don't have access to dssl's zoo,
they have managed, over the years, to acquire a test set that has a
considerable intersection with dssl's zoo, that is all...
 RF> AVP currently claims "only" 12240 viruses in its database.  Are you
 RF> saying Solly's is better because it claims to detect an additional
 RF> 4000 viruses ... THEIR OWN "VIRUSES ... the bulk of which Secure
 RF> Computing seems to have rejected as unsuitable for testing ?
secure computing never "rejected" those viruses, most of them never came
into secure computing's possession, i expect...
as for which is better, the number of viruses in avp's database is
smaller than the number of viruses avp actually detects because avp does
not perform exact identification... the number of viruses in findvirus'
database is roughly equal to the number of viruses their product detects
(i'm completely neglecting heuristic detection for both products)
because of it performs exact identification and requires those extra
viruses in it's database to detect as many as it does by the means that
it does...
 RF> Are you becoming a member of the gullible public ?
 
not a bit...
 >> not in light of the degree of error... avp's true detection rate could
 >> well be below 80%, though that figure is unlikely...
 RF> EXTREMELY unlikely!
findvirus' detection rate could also be below 80%... in fact with the
secure computing test you mention, the detection rate of all the
scanners could be almost half of what SC is reporting...
... Virus Alert/Tagline Virus, avoid "Virus Alert" infected taglines...
--- TGWave v1.20.b09
---------------