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: padgett%tccslr.dnet@mmc.com (A. Padgett Peterson)
Newsgroups: comp.virus
Subject: Network World Article (PC)
Message-ID: <0003.9106031950.AA02037@ubu.cert.sei.cmu.edu>
Date: 31 May 91 16:02:41 GMT
Sender: Virus Discussion List <VIRUS-L@LEHIIBM1>
Lines: 23
Approved: krvw@sei.cmu.edu

>From:    rtravsky@CORRAL.UWYO.EDU (Richard W Travsky)

>An accompanying chart shows the percentage of detection by the packages
>against 921 viruses. Here's how the rankings went (only 15 of the 21 were
>reported for some reason):

Interesting: when you eliminate the older versions of the products,
you are actually left with 10 programs and all appear to be scanners,
not validation programs (Enigma-Logic's Virus-Safe, McAfee's VSHIELD
,etc. were not included) so it is difficult to tell just what they are
evaluating.

Just to provide "apples vs apples" tests, possibly in conjunction with
the public domain viral list, we should make a stab at a weighted test
(e.g. Jerusalem 1000 pts for detection, Pentagon 1 pt.) if we can come
up with a probability function for infection it would certainly be
better than "We can detect 900 viruses". We can start with David's
list, flesh it out a bit, and apply a bit of Quattro's "What If"
(there goes some more negative free time - what we need is a national
laboratory).

					Warmly,
						Padgett