Jump to content


Photo

Spyware Center


  • Please log in to reply
10 replies to this topic

#1 Safari

Safari

    Member

  • Full Member
  • Pip
  • 18 posts

Posted 31 May 2005 - 12:21 PM

This was an interesting test performed by somebody at Download.com. Here are the products they used in the tests.

# Ad-Aware
# eTrust PestPatrol Anti-Spyware
# Microsoft Windows AntiSpyware beta
# Spybot - Search & Destroy
# Spyware Doctor
# Webroot Spy Sweeper

View Results
Their Rankings
Nasties Tested

Let me know if anyone reads and finds interesting...

Safari
Posted Image

#2 ErikAlbert

ErikAlbert

    Typical User

  • Full Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 787 posts

Posted 31 May 2005 - 04:12 PM

Here is my 2 cent opinion :

1. This test proves that all these softwares are different in detecting/removing adware/spyware fingerprints in QUANTITY and IDENTITY.
That's the reason why users need more than one scanner and even a scanner with the highest quantity of fingerprints, can still be beaten by a smaller scanner because of the difference in identity.

And how many adwares/spywares are detected by these scanners : a few teaspoons of the Malware Ocean ?
You will find the rest of adwares/spywares on HijackThis logs.

2. This test also proves that all these softwares search for a big number of the SAME "popular" adware/spyware fingerprints.
Not very efficient IMO, but that's the way it is and the total scan time of all these scanners remains the same with or without finding the adwares/spywares.

If you have 4 scanners of 25,000 "popular" fingerprints and you put all these fingerprints in one database, DOUBLES REMOVED, the total number of fingerprints will be alot smaller than 100,000 and you get a much shorter scan time and only one scanner.
That seems to be impossible in practice, because of the competition and typical users don't know any better.
I wonder how long it will take that typical users get angry with the constantly increasing total scan time of all these scanners.
But that is a problem for the future. The fingerprint databases are still too small.

3. The winner of this test isn't the real winner.
I still remember these test results :
http://windowssecrets.com/comp/050127/
The winner in this test was "MS/Giant AntiSpyware" and not Ad-Aware SE Personal Edition.
If I start looking on the internet, I will find other tests with again another winner.

There is no scientific proof of a real winner, because the number of adwares/spywares is so huge on the net, that it is humanly almost impossible to create a sufficient and controlled test environment.
Too much work for a test and too many adwares/spywares on the net.

The usual test environments contain a small number of adwares/spywares and the scanner who removed the biggest number in that specific test environment will be the winner, but could be the loser in another test environment.
So the winner is always an ACCIDENTAL winner and is certainly not the real winner.
Nobody knows the real winner, but there are enough GUESSES about the real winner.

Personally, I don't like any of these tests, because they are misleading for typical users and I'm glad that the accidental winner in this test is a freeware :)

Edited by ErikAlbert, 31 May 2005 - 04:34 PM.

ErikAlbert
Simplicity is always brilliant.

#3 cnm

cnm

    Mother Lion of SWI

  • Retired Staff
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 25,317 posts

Posted 31 May 2005 - 05:17 PM

A very important consideration is how fast updates appear to deal with the new members of the everchanging malware gang.
Microsoft MVP Windows Security 2005-2006
How camest thou in this pickle? -- William Shakespeare:(1564-1616)
The various helper groups here
UNITE

#4 lonewolf

lonewolf

    Advanced Member

  • Full Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 233 posts

Posted 01 June 2005 - 07:37 AM

One other thing to keep in mind about any tests of this nature is who paid for the tests? Often these kind of tests are paid for by the very companies who's products are being tested! Do you really think their product will get a fair rating? I'm not saying that is necessarily the case in these tests, but it is more common than many believe to be so.

So far the best tests done with anti-spyware programs that I have seen to date are the one's done by Eric Howes. Though somewhat dated now, they are still a fairly good indication of how good(?) each program is. His tests were thorough and fair, and if you haven't checked them out yet I suggest you do. http://spywarewarrio...sults-1.htm#key

Also here's link to where Pest Patrol can be found for free. Though I believe it to be version 4 not 5. I think v 4 is better anyhow, and you still have the same defs as v 5. http://www.excid.com...urenet/download

#5 ErikAlbert

ErikAlbert

    Typical User

  • Full Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 787 posts

Posted 01 June 2005 - 10:57 AM

cnm,
Yes, updating is "very important". Without updating each scanner would be worthless in no time. The faster, the better.

lonewolf,
I agree with you that the sponsor of the test would like to see his software on top.
It's hard to prove, but very acceptable in the real business world.

Concerning the test of Eric Howes :
I know Eric Howes has a good reputation. So if I would put a little faith in a test, it would be this one.

When that test was published at SWI, I noticed something strange after comparing these links :
http://windowssecrets.com/comp/050127/
http://www.spywarewa...nti-spyware.htm

As you can see, at least 3 tested softwares are blacklisted on the second link, also a website of Eric Howes :
SpyKiller 2005, Spyware COP and Spyware Stormer.
I never understood why he wasted his time on testing 3 suspected softwares.
The only reason, I can think of, is that Eric Howes did the test before he knew that these 3 softwares weren't clean.

Please keep in mind that I'm not blaming Eric Howes anything. I love his list of rogue anti-spywares.
It just didn't look logical to me.

Edited by ErikAlbert, 01 June 2005 - 11:02 AM.

ErikAlbert
Simplicity is always brilliant.

#6 cnm

cnm

    Mother Lion of SWI

  • Retired Staff
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 25,317 posts

Posted 01 June 2005 - 11:05 AM

Eric Howes is of course the author of IE-SPYAD and is an Expert here (eburger68).
Microsoft MVP Windows Security 2005-2006
How camest thou in this pickle? -- William Shakespeare:(1564-1616)
The various helper groups here
UNITE

#7 ErikAlbert

ErikAlbert

    Typical User

  • Full Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 787 posts

Posted 01 June 2005 - 11:10 AM

cnm,
I know that, but that doesn't change anything. You can't say I'm wrong about this. I don't suspect Eric Howes of anything.
I'm just mentioning facts, that's all.
I'm very sure he has a good explanation for this.

Edited by ErikAlbert, 01 June 2005 - 11:14 AM.

ErikAlbert
Simplicity is always brilliant.

#8 Paranoid

Paranoid

    Forum Deity

  • Full Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 533 posts

Posted 03 June 2005 - 02:47 PM

This was an interesting test performed by somebody at Download.com.  Here are the products they used in the tests.

# Ad-Aware
# eTrust PestPatrol Anti-Spyware
# Microsoft Windows AntiSpyware beta
# Spybot - Search & Destroy
# Spyware Doctor
# Webroot Spy Sweeper

View Results
Their Rankings
Nasties Tested

Let me know if anyone reads and finds interesting...

Safari

View Post


Too bad they test only against 8 nasties. That's too small a sample.

Still its interesting to note that for most tests of antispyware/adware, samples used are small compared to AV tests.

I have a theory why this is so....
Please note that the software I recommend above is entirely based on only my own experience and testing. In no way should my comments,opinions and endorsements be construed as an endorsement by the forum, nor do they reflect the advise or recommendations by the experts or helpers at spywareinfo.


#9 ErikAlbert

ErikAlbert

    Typical User

  • Full Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 787 posts

Posted 03 June 2005 - 04:02 PM

Paranoid,
I have also a theory why this is so ...

1. Too many adwares/spywares on the net. Internet is out of control, but they don't like to admit it.
There are more malware writers, than anti-malware companies.
The world population is big enough and doing bad is alot more profitable than doing good.
There are 192 rogue softwares and how many legal softwares do we have ? Just a few.
Money, money, money.

2. Too lazy/too much money to create a sufficient and controlled test environment, if that is even possible considering the number of malwares on the net.
Again money, money, money.

3. Too many commercial influences to falsify the winner, sorry winnerS.
Again money, money, money.

4. Commercial/Free softwares and suite softwares like to keep up the appearance that they are good enough to protect users sufficiently.
Read their home page, they all pretend to be the very best in the world.
An excellent test environment would be the proof for users, that their protection is far from sufficient.
The usual poor test environments don't expose the real truth about all these softwares.
Again money, money, money.

5. Virus aren't a daily threat anymore. Spyware is #1 and that causes Identity Theft, a billion dollar business.
Again money, money, money

6. If I did forget something, it's all about money again.

Of course all this smells like rant to Paranoid. No, it smells like MONEY.
Or don't you know anything about human nature ?

Edited by ErikAlbert, 03 June 2005 - 04:17 PM.

ErikAlbert
Simplicity is always brilliant.

#10 Paranoid

Paranoid

    Forum Deity

  • Full Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 533 posts

Posted 04 June 2005 - 08:43 AM

Paranoid,
I have also a theory why this is so ...


This is going to be good.


Of course all this smells like rant to Paranoid. No, it smells like MONEY.
Or don't you know anything about human nature ?

View Post


Yes, people are greedy, so greedy that if they can come up with a obviously superior product, they are going to make it and sell it so everyone will buy it.

Of course you prefer to believe in conspiracies .

I was actually referring to a technical reason why tests of antispyware/adware consists of much smaller samples than antivirus tests, but my precognitive abilities was sufficient to guess your reaction

Edited by Paranoid, 04 June 2005 - 08:46 AM.

Please note that the software I recommend above is entirely based on only my own experience and testing. In no way should my comments,opinions and endorsements be construed as an endorsement by the forum, nor do they reflect the advise or recommendations by the experts or helpers at spywareinfo.


#11 ErikAlbert

ErikAlbert

    Typical User

  • Full Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 787 posts

Posted 04 June 2005 - 04:43 PM

Paranoid,
I don't believe in conspiracies.
I think, that people don't always want to change things, when everybody is making alot of money,
Spyware and Anti-Spyware is good business and give alot of people a job, while the criminals earn a fortune. Live and let live.

Nothing really changed during all these years, it only gets worse every day.

Edited by ErikAlbert, 04 June 2005 - 04:53 PM.

ErikAlbert
Simplicity is always brilliant.




Member of UNITE
Support SpywareInfo Forum - click the button