Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!unix.cis.pitt.edu!dsinc!netnews.upenn.edu!vax1.cc.lehigh.edu!cert.sei.cmu.edu!krvw From: CHESS@YKTVMV.BITNET (David.M.Chess) Newsgroups: comp.virus Subject: re: Comparing virus scanners (PC) Message-ID: <0007.9105141950.AA12065@ubu.cert.sei.cmu.edu> Date: 14 May 91 15:00:54 GMT Sender: Virus Discussion List Lines: 20 Approved: krvw@sei.cmu.edu > From: frisk@rhi.hi.is (Fridrik Skulason) > > ... > Virscan 1.45 [very bad numbers] > ... I hope that's not IBM's VIRSCAN? If it is, it's a version from *last June* (and an internal, not a product, version at that). If that's "available" in Austria, it shouldn't be. On the other hand, there are a few different products in the world called "Virscan", so perhaps this line is about something else. It might be helpful if the manufacturer were listed for all the programs named in lists like this. (It's also in general not a good idea to do timing-tests on infected files; IBM's scanner, for instance, stops for a good half-second to "beep" when it finds an infected file, which will add greatly to the timings if infected files are used for tests! Real users, of course, probably don't care how long it takes to scan infected files, just clean (normal) ones.) DC