{"id":1523,"date":"2009-12-09T20:19:18","date_gmt":"2009-12-10T01:19:18","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/rbachnet.wwwmi3-ss40.a2hosted.com\/?p=1523"},"modified":"2022-12-30T12:35:55","modified_gmt":"2022-12-30T17:35:55","slug":"which-anti-malware-is-best","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/rbach.net\/index.php\/which-anti-malware-is-best\/","title":{"rendered":"Which Anti-Malware is Best?"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"WhichIn a report<\/a>, AV-Comparatives<\/a> compared the base performance of some of the top anti-malware products on the market. The objective of these tests was to identify how well antivirus scanners can detect new malware using their base functions.<\/p>\n

Base anti-malware functions included their proactive scanning and heuristics methods, without the advantage of downloading the latest signatures. Forcing a test without the latest virus signatures makes it possible to evaluate the strength of the heuristic-or proactive, technology of the anti-malware engines.<\/p>\n

ArsTechnica<\/em><\/a> summarizes that the tests were run on two sets of malware. Set A, which contains malware from December 2007 to December 2008 (of which most products could detect over 97%). Set B, contained 1.6 million samples of malware collected between August 11 and August 17, 2009. This set included the following categories of malware: Trojans (69.5%), Backdoors\/Bots (20.7%), Worms (6.1%), other malware (1.5%), and Windows viruses (0.4%).<\/p>\n

Results<\/h3>\n

Ars<\/em> reported these proactive detection results (rounded to the nearest percent):<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

After taking these results into consideration and adjusting for false positives, AV-Comparatives rated the security companies from best to worst in three categories:<\/p>\n