Re: which virus scanner is better norton or mcaffee?



"edgewalker" <null@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1290jkmei8op56a@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

"Kayman" <khkay@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:e6nnrq$dq2$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
The post wasn't directed to David. The added comment serves to highlight
the effectiveness of a free av application;

Its effectiveness against that particular small subset of viruses. Another
set may
well trade that 96% for 3% effectiveness.

Well, it has to be worth something. David does not appear to me having an
inflated ego.
The following is an abridged and consolidated test report from 3 e-mail
messages posted to newsgroups
microsoft.public.security.virus,microsoft.public.security,microsoft.public.security.homeusers

"I just ran another impromptu test of
http://safety.live.com/site/en-US/default.htm and it
scored extremely poorly. I placed 27 known infected EXE only files in a
folder and had
Microsoft, Sophos, Trend Micro, McAfee, Kaspersky and AntiVir scan the
files.
Microsoft: 2 out of 27
Sophos: 23 out of 27
Trend Micro: 19 out of 27
McAfee: 18 out of 27
Kaspersky: 23 out of 27
AntiVir: 26 out of 27
AntiVir did surprising well !!"
---
Dave
http://www.claymania.com/removal-trojan-adware.html
http://www.ik-cs.com/got-a-virus.htm

Only regular readers of the
relevant newsgroup(s) may be aware of this particular test. Since David
initiated and conducted this test, I find it appropriate that a short
note
recognizing the source of information is in order.

Kudos for that - recognition is a good thing. I believe that David would
be the
first to admit such tests are best taken with salt.
I will consider adding the "salt" bit when recommending AntVir Free in
future.
However, I failed adding
his websites. http://www.claymania.com/removal-trojan-adware.html
http://www.ik-cs.com/got-a-virus.htm for further useful references.

Neither of those sites are his. :))
I did not imply this, rather to direct newcomers to useful websites in which
they
may access av applications written by David and read other valuable
articles.
Hopefully, it also would steer them to the main-site reading the text as
shown blow and act accordingly.
"We support Enrichanother.com - Direct Impact Giving
Enrichanother.com is an internet tool, offered free of charge to the public,
where charities can post projects, donors can
pick the projects they like, and everyone can see the results. Know exactly
what your donation is accomplishing, who is
benefiting, and how a problem is being solved. Enrichanother puts you in the
driver's seat in your charitable giving, with an
accessible, clear picture of where your dollars and efforts go before,
during and after you donate. Please visit
enrichanother.com and show your support today!"

This unintentional omission will be rectified in future posts.
With all good wishes,

No need on account of me - David has proven his abilities and I don't
doubt them.
I don't believe he places too much weight on results produced on such a
small set.

"edgewalker" <null@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:128ue0tbba9hd65@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

"Kayman" <khkay@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:e6lqf7$jb1$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Please note: In March 2006, David H. Lipman ran an impromptu test of
AntiVir
Free-av placing 27 known infected EXE only files in a folder and had
AntiVir
Free-av scan the files.
The free anti-virus program detected 26 out of the 27 infectants...

I'm sure David knows the value of such tests.

Could you pass the salt, please? :))








.