=========================================
File 7EVALW2k.TXT
Evaluation of VTC Scanner Test "2001-04":
=========================================
Formatted with non-proportional font (Courier)

Content of this file:
=====================
  **********************************************************************
    Eval W2k:   Development of detection rates under Windows-2000:
  **********************************************************************
    Eval W2k.01: Development of W-2000 Scanner Detection Rates
    Table W2k-A: Comparison File/Macro/Script virus detection rates
    Eval W2k.02: Evaluation of overall W-2000 AV detection rates
    Eval W2k.03: In-The-Wild Detection under W-2000
    Eval W2k.04: Evaluation of detection by virus classes under W-2000
             W2k.04.1 Grading the Detection of file viruses under W-2000
             W2k.04.2 Grading the Detection of macro viruses under W-2000
             W2k.04.3 Grading the Detection of script viruses under W-2000
             W2k.04.4 Grading of Poly-virus detection under W-2000
             W2k.04.5 Grading of VKit virus detection under W-2000
    Eval W2k.05: Detection of Packed File and Macro Viruses under W-2000
    Eval W2k.06: Avoidance of False Alarms (File, Macro) under W-2000
    Eval W2k.07: Detection of File and Macro Malware under W-2000 
    Eval W2k.08: Detection of "Exotic" malware
    Eval W2k.SUM Grading of W-2000 products
  **********************************************************************


This part of VTC "2001-04" test report evaluates the detailed
results as given in sections (files):
    6hW2k.TXT       File/Macro Viruses/Malware results    W-2000 (W2k)

The following (17) products participated in this scanner test for W-2000 products:
 	 --------------------------------------------------------
           Products submitted for aVTC test under Windows-98:
	 --------------------------------------------------------
         AV3         	v: 3.0.304.0		sig: Dec.04,2000
    	 AVG 6   	v: 6.220                sig: Dec.11,2000
    	 AVK 10  	v: 10,0,0,0		sig: Dec.07,2000
    	 AVP Platinum   v: 3.5.311.0		sig: Dec.07,2000
         CMD     	v: 4.60			sig: Dec.11,2000
	 FPR     	v: 3.08b	        sig: Dec.11,2000
    	 FPW     	v: 3.08b		sig: Dec.11,2000
    	 FSE     	v: 5.21			sig: Dec.01,2000
    	 INO     	v: 4.53 Enterprise Ed.  sig: Dec.11,2000
         NAV     	v: 5.01.01		sig: Dec.07,2000
    	 NVC     	v: 4.86			sig: Dec.01,2000
    	 PAV     	v: 3.0.132.4		sig: Dec.07,2000
    	 PER     	v: 6.60			sig: Nov.30,2000
    	 PRO     	v: 7.0.A11		sig: Dec.09,2000
	 RAV     	v: 8.1.001		sig: Dec.11,2000
    	 SCN     	v: 4.12.0		sig: Dec.06,2000
    	 VSP     	v: 12.02.2		sig: Dec.11,2000
         --------------------------------------------------------

 
Eval W2k.01: Scanner Detection Rates under Windows-2000:
========================================================
The number of scanners running under Windows 2000 is growing. Evidently, AV producers
invest now more work into the development of the W32-related platforms, and here into
the detection of macro viruses whereas detection of file viruses degrades. 

The following table summarizes results of file, macro and script virus detection 
under Windows-2000:

Table W2k-A: Comparison: File/Macro/Script Virus Detection Rate:
================================================================
Scan I  = File Virus = + === Macro Virus === + = Script Virus =
 ner I     Detection   I      Detection      I    Detection    
-----+-----------------+---------------------+--------------------
Test I    0104  Delta  I  0008  0104   Delta I   0008  0104  Delta  
-----+-----------------+---------------------+--------------------
ANT  I      -     -    I  93.3     -     -   I   53.9    -     -       
AV3  I    95.0    -    I  94.1   95.7  +1.6  I   15.0  29.1 +14.1 
AVG  I    81.9    -    I  97.9   98.3  +0.4  I   45.8  57.9 +12.1
AVK  I    99.8    -    I 100.0~ 100.0~  0.0  I   91.5  99.8  +8.3
AVP  I    99.9    -    I 100.0~ 100.0~  0.0  I   88.2  99.8 +11.6
AVX  I      -     -    I  99.0     -     -   I   61.4    -     -   
CLE  I      -     -    I    -      -     -   I    4.2    -     -
CMD  I    97.8    -    I 100.0% 100.0%  0.0  I   93.5  96.9  +3.4
DRW  I      -     -    I  97.5     -     -   I   59.8    -     -   
FPR  I    97.8    -    I    -   100.0%   -   I     -   96.9    -
FPW  I    97.8    -    I 100.0% 100.0%  0.0  I   90.8  96.9  +6.1
FSE  I      -     -    I 100.0% 100.0%  0.0  I   96.7  100%  +3.3
INO  I    97.9    -    I  99.8   99.7  -0.1  I   78.1  93.1 +15.0
NAV  I    93.9    -    I  97.7   97.0  -0.7  I   36.6  54.5 +17.9
NVC  I    98.1    -    I  99.9   99.8  -0.1  I   83.7  88.5  +4.8
PAV  I    97.5    -    I 100.0~  99.4  -0.6  I   90.2  98.5  +8.3
PER  I      -     -    I  85.0   68.2 -16.8  I    0.0  22.0 +22.0
PRO  I    70.6    -    I  69.1   67.1  -2.0  I   12.1  40.7 +28.6
QHL  I      -     -    I   0.0     -     -   I    6.9    -     -   
RAV  I    93.5    -    I  96.9   99.6   3.3  I   47.1  84.9 +37.8
SCN  I    89.0    -    I 100.0% 100.0%  0.0  I   95.8  100%  +4.2
VSP  I      -     -    I    -     0.0    -   I     -   85.3    -
-----+-----------------+---------------------+---------------------
Mean :    97.6%   -    I  99.9%  89.7% -1.0  I   57.6  79.4 +13.2%
-----+-----------------+---------------------+---------------------
Remark: for abbreviations of products (code names), see appendix A5CodNam.txt.

Generally, the ability of W2k scanners to detect file zoo viruses "in the mean" 
is on an acceptable level.

Concerning macro viruses, "mean" detection rate is significantly reduced to an 
inacceptably low level (<90%) as almost all scanners detected less (mean -1.0)
macro viruses than in last test (2000-08). But 5 scanners (CMD,FPR,FPW,FSE,SCN)
detected all macro viruses.

Concerning script viruses which is presently the fastest growing sector, detection 
rate is still very low (79.4% mean) but those (15) products which also participated 
in last VTC test have improved their detection rates by impressing figures 
(+13.2% mean). And now, 2 scanners (FSE,SCN) detect all script viruses. 


   ****************************************************************
   Findings W2k.1: For W-2000, file detection rates are acceptable
                   but macro and script zoo virus detection rates 
                   need essential improvement. No scanner is rated 
                   perfect overall as NO scanner detects ALL file 
                   viruses. But 5 (of 17) scanners detect ALL zoo 
                   macro viruses:
			        CMD, FPR, FPW, FSE, SCN.
                   And 2 (out of 17) scanners detect ALL zoo script 
                   viruses:	     FSE, SCN.	   
    ****************************************************************


Eval W2k.02: In-The-Wild (File,Macro,Script) Detection under W-2000
===================================================================
Concerning "In-The-Wild" viruses, the following grid is applied:
       - detection rate is 100% : scanner is "perfect"
       - detection rate is >99% : scanner is "excellent"
       - detection rate is >95% : scanner is "very good"
       - detection rate is >90% : scanner is "good"
       - detection rate is <90% : scanner is "risky"

100% detection of In-the-Wild viruses also esp. detecting ALL
instantiations of those viruses is now ABSOLUTE REQUIREMENT, for
file, macro and script viruses. 

The following 5 W-2000 products (of 17) reach 100% for ITW file, macro 
and script virus detection and are rated "perfect" in this category 
(alphabetically ordered):
                                            ITW Viruses&Files
                                        ( File    Macro   Script)
                                        -------------------------
"Perfect" W2k ITW scanners:     AVK      (100.0%  100.0%  100.0%) 
				AVP      (100.0%  100.0%  100.0%) 
				INO      (100.0%  100.0%  100.0%) 
				PAV      (100.0%  100.0%  100.0%) 
				SCN      (100.0%  100.0%  100.0%) 

Moreover, the following other scanners are "perfect" concerning
detection of ITW macro and file viruses but dont detect 100% of
script viruses and files:
                                        ITW Viruses&Files
                                        ( File    Macro )
                                        -----------------
				AVG      (100.0%  100.0%)
				AVK      (100.0%  100.0%)
				AVP      (100.0%  100.0%)
				CMD      (100.0%  100.0%)
				FPR      (100.0%  100.0%)
				FPW      (100.0%  100.0%)
				FSE      (100.0%  100.0%)
				INO      (100.0%  100.0%)
				NAV      (100.0%  100.0%)
				NVC      (100.0%  100.0%)
				PAV      (100.0%  100.0%)
				SCN      (100.0%  100.0%)


   ****************************************************************
   Findings W2k.2:  5 AV products (out of 17) detect ALL
                    In-The-Wild file, macro and zoo viruses in
	            ALL instantiations (files):
				AVK, AVP, INO, PAV, SCN
                    And 12 products can be rated "perfect" con-
                    cerning detection of file and macro viruses 
                    but they still fail to detect all script viral
                    files (objects): 
                    AVG,AVK,AVP,CMD,FPR,FPW,FSE,INO,NAV,NVC,PAV,SCN		    
   ****************************************************************
 				

Eval W2k.03: Evaluation of overall W-2000 AV detection rates (zoo,ITW)
======================================================================
The following grid is applied to classify scanners:

     - detection rate     =100% : scanner is graded "perfect"
     - detection rate above 99% : scanner is graded "excellent"
     - detection rate above 95% : scanner is graded "very good"
     - detection rate above 90% : scanner is graded "good"
     - detection rate of 80-90% : scanner is graded "good enough"
     - detection rate of 70-80% : scanner is graded "not good enough"
     - detection rate of 60-70% : scanner is graded "rather bad"
     - detection rate of 50-60% : scanner is graded "very bad"
     - detection rate below 50% : scanner is graded "useless"

To assess an "overall AV grade" (including file, macro and script virus
virus detection, for unpacked objects), the lowest of the related results
is used to classify each scanner. Only scanners where all tests were 
completed are considered. (For problems in test: see 8problms.txt).

The following list indicates those scanners graded into one of the upper 
three categories, with file and macro virus detection rates in unpacked 
samples, and with perfect ITW virus detection (rate=100%). 


                                   (file/macro/script zoo; file/macro/script ITW) 
                                   ----------------------------------------------
    "Perfect" W2k scanners:  =NONE=
                                   ----------------------------------------------     
    "Excellent" W2k scanners:  AVK    ( 99.9  100~  99.8 ; 100% 100% 100% )
                               AVP   ( 99.8  100~  99.8 ; 100% 100% 100% )
                                   ----------------------------------------------
     "Very Good" W2k scanners: PAV    ( 97.5  99.4  98.5 ; 100% 100% 100% )
			       CMD    ( 97.8  100%  96.9 ; 100% 100% 100% )
			       FPR    ( 97.8  100%  96.9 ; 100% 100% 100% )
			       FPW    ( 97.8  100%  96.9 ; 100% 100% 100% )
    				   ----------------------------------------------

Few more scanners are "perfect" or "excellent" with respect to 2 categories
as they have insufficient detection rates for the third category:

	 			   (file/macro/script zoo; file/macro/script ITW) 
                                   ----------------------------------------------
     			       NVC    ( 98.1  99.8  88.5 ; 100% 100% 100% )
			       SCN    ( 89.0  100%  100% ; 100% 100% 100% )
				   ----------------------------------------------
	
   ******************************************************************
   Findings W2k.3: No W2k product is overall rated "perfect".
                   2 "excellent" overall scanners: AVK, AVP  
                   4 "very good" overall scanners: PAV, CMD, FPR, FPW 
   ******************************************************************


Eval W2k.04: Evaluation of detection by virus classes under W-2000:
===================================================================
Some scanners are specialised on detecting some class of viruses 
(either in deliberately limiting themselves to one class, esp. 
macro viruses, or in detecting one class significantly better than 
others). It is therefore worth notifying which scanners perform best 
in detecting file, macro and script viruses. 

Two special tests of file viruses were also performed to determine the
quality of AV product maintenance. One test was concerned with almost
11,000 viruses generated from the VKIT virus generator. Some AV products
count each of the potential 14,000 viruses as new variant while others
count all VKIT viruses just as ONE virus. Fortunately, a high proportion
of tested products detects these viruses (see 4.5), although reliability
of detection is significantly less than normally (see 6BDOSFIL.TXT).

Another special test was devoted to the detection of 10,000 polymorphic 
generations each of the following 6 polymorphic viruses: Maltese.Amoeba, 
MTE.Encroacher.B, NATAS, TREMOR, One-Half and Tequila. Detection rates 
were "almost perfect". 

Products rated "perfect" (=100%), "excellent" (>99%) and "very good" 
(>95%) are listed.


    W2k.04.1 Grading the Detection of file viruses under W2k:
    ---------------------------------------------------------
    "Perfect" W2k scanner:          === NONE ===
    "Excellent" W2k scanners:       AVP  ( 99.9%)    
				    AVK  ( 99.8%)
    "Very Good" W2k file scanners:  NVC  ( 98.1%)   
				    CMD  ( 97.8%)  
                                    INO  ( 97.9%) 
				    FPR  ( 97.8%)    
                                    FPW  ( 97.8%)
                                    PAV  ( 97.5%)    
                                    AV3  ( 95.0%)   


     W2k.04.2 Grading the Detection of macro viruses under W2k
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    "Perfect" W2k macro scanners:   CMD  (100.0%)    
			            FPR  (100.0%)   
				    FPW  (100.0%)   
				    FSE  (100.0%)    
				    SCN  (100.0%)   
    "Excellent" W2k macro scanners: AVK  ( 100~ )   
				    AVP  ( 100~ )   
				    NVC  ( 99.8%)   
                                    INO  ( 99.7%)   
				    RAV  ( 99.6%) 
                                    PAV  ( 99.4%)   
    "Very Good" W2k macro scanners: AVG  ( 98.3%)
                                    NAV  ( 97.0%)
                                    AV3  ( 95.7%)   


     W2k.04.3 Grading the Detection of Script viruses under W2k:
     ------------------------------------------------------------
    "Perfect" W2k script scanners:   FSE (100.0%)    
                                     SCN (100.0%)   
    "Excellent" W2k script scanners: AVK ( 99.8%)
				     AVP ( 99.8%)
				                                     
    "Very Good" W2k script scanners: PAV ( 99.5%) 
                                     CMD ( 96.9%)
				     FPR ( 96.9%) 
				     FPW ( 96.9%)


     W2k.04.4 Grading of Poly-virus detection under W2k
     --------------------------------------------------
     "Perfect" Poly-detectors which detect all instantiations of all (6)
               polymorphic file viruses always reliable:                  
                         AVG, AVK, AVP, FSE, PAV
     "Excellent" Poly-detectors which detect all instantiations of all (6)
               polymorphic file viruses but not always reliably:
                     CMD, FPR, FPW, INO, NAV, NVC, RAV, SCN.    
        

     W2k.04.5 Grading of VKit virus detection:
     -----------------------------------------
     "Perfect" VKit detectors which detect all generations of VKit viruses
               always reliably:            ===NONE===
     "Excellent" Kit detectors which detect all generations of VKit viruses
               viruses but not always reliably:  AVK, AVP, FSE, PAV, SCN

   
   ***********************************************************************
   Finding W2k.4: Performance of W2k scanners by virus classes:
                  ---------------------------------------------
	       Perfect scanners for file zoo:                       =NONE=
               Excellent scanners for file zoo:                    AVP,AVK
               Perfect scanners for macro zoo:         CMD,FPR,FPW,FSE,SCN
               Perfect scanners for script zoo:                    FSE,SCN	
               Perfect scanners for polymorphic set:   AVG,AVK,AVP,FSE,PAV
	       Perfect scanners for VKit set:                       =NONE=
               Excellent scanners for VKit set:        AVK,AVP,FSE,PAV,SCN
   ***********************************************************************
   


Eval WNT.05: Detection of Packed File and Macro Viruses under W-2k
==================================================================
Detection of file and macro viruses within packed objects becomes 
essential for on-access scanning, esp. for incoming email possibly 
loaded with malicious objects. It seems therefore reasonable to test
whether at least ITW viral objects compressed with given popular 
methods are also detected. In addition to those 4 packers used
in previous tests (PKZIP, ARJ, LHA, RAR), the following packers were
added to detection tests: WinRAR and CAB.  

Tests are performed only on In-The-Wild viruses packed once (no 
recursive packing). As last test showed that AV products are rather
far from perfect detection of packed viruses, testbed has essentially
bee unchanged to ease comparison and improvement.

        A "perfect" product would detect ALL packed viral samples
                    (100%) file AND macro for all (6) packers:
            ----------------------------------------------------
            "Perfect" packed virus detectors: AVK, AVP, PAV, SCN
            ----------------------------------------------------
               
        An "excellent" product would reach 100% detection
        of packed viral samples (file&macro) for at least 5 packers:
            --------------------------------------------------------
            "Excellent" packed macro virus detector: =NONE=
            -----------------------------------------------
 
        A "very good" product would detect viral samples (ITW file&macro)
        for at least 4 packers:
            ------------------------------------------------------
            "Very Good" packed macro virus detector: CMD, FPR, FPW
            ------------------------------------------------------
   
Concerning only detection of packed file virus samples, the following products
can be rated "perfect" as they detect ALL samples:
	    --------------------------------------------------------------
            "Perfect" packed file virus detectors: AVK, AVP, FSE, PAV, SCN
            --------------------------------------------------------------

Concerning only detection of packed macro virus samples, the only products
rated "perfect" are those (4) which detect ALL (file AND macro) viral samples:
	    ----------------------------------------------------------
            "Perfect" packed macro virus detectors: AVK, AVP, PAV, SCN
            ----------------------------------------------------------

Remark: Much more data were collected on precision and reliability of
virus detection in packed objects. But in the present state, it
seems NOT justified to add differentiation to results discussed here.

   **************************************************************************
   Findings WNT.5: Detection of packed viral objects needs improvement
                Perfect packed file/macro virus WNT detector: AVK,AVP,PAV,SCN
                Perfect packed file macro detector:       AVK,AVP,FSE,PAV,SCN
                Perfect packed macro virus detector:          AVK,AVP,PAV,SCN
   **************************************************************************                        


Eval W2k.06: Avoidance of False Alarms (File, Macro) under W-2000:
==================================================================
First introduced in VTC test "1998-10", a set of clean (and non-malicious) 
objects has been added to the file and macro virus testbeds to determine 
the ability of scanners to avoid False-Positive (FP) alarms. This ability 
is essential for "excellent" and "very good" scanners as there is no automatic 
aid to customers to handle such cases (besides the psychological impact on 
customers work). Therefore, the grid used for grading AV products must be 
significantly more rigid than that one used for detection.

The following grid is applied to classify scanners:
     - False Positive rate = 0.0%: scanner is graded "perfect"
     - False Positive rate < 0.5%: scanner is graded "excellent"
     - False Positive rate < 2.5%: scanner is graded "very good"
     - False Positive rate < 5.0%: scanner is graded "good enough"
     - False Positive rate <10.0%: scanner is graded "rather bad"
     - False Positive rate <20.0%: scanner is graded "very bad"
     - False Positive rate >20.0%: scanner is graded "useless"

	    -------------------------------------------------------------------
            "Perfect" FP avoiding W2k scanners: AV3,AVG,AVK,INO,PRO,RAV,SCN,VSP
            -------------------------------------------------------------------
              
                 
All (totally 15) W2k scanners gave NO FP alarm on clean files:
	    ------------------------------------------------------------
            "Perfect" file FP avoiding W2k scanners: AV3, AVG, AVK, AVP, 
                  CMD, FPR, FPW, INO, NAV, NVC, PAV, PRO, RAV, SCN, VSP
            ------------------------------------------------------------
               
   ****************************************************************     
   Findings W2k.6: Avoidance of False-Positive Alarms is improving
                   though still regarded insufficient.
                   FP-avoiding perfect W-2k scanners:  
                                    AV3,AVG,AVK,INO,PRO,RAV,SCN,VSP
   ****************************************************************


Eval W2k.07: Detection of File and Macro Malware under W-2k 
===========================================================
Since test "1997-07", VTC tests also the ability of AV products to detect non-viral 
malware. An essential argument for this category is that customers are interested to 
be also warned about and protected from non-viral and non-wormy malicious objects such 
as trojans etc, the payload of which may be disastrous to their work (e.g. stealing 
passwords).  

Since VTC test "1999-03", malware detection is a mandatory part of VTC tests, both for 
submitted products and for those downloaded as free evaluation copies.  

A growing number of scanners is indeed able to detect non-viral malware. The following 
grid (admittedly with reduced granularity) is applied to classify detection of file 
and macro malware:

     - detection rate     =100% : scanner is "perfect"
     - detection rate     > 90% : scanner is "excellent"
     - detection rate of 80-90% : scanner is "very good"
     - detection rate of 60-80% : scanner is "good enough"
     - detection rate of  < 60% : scanner is "not good enough"


Concerning file AND Macro malware detection:
	    --------------------------------------------------------------
            "Perfect" file/macro malware detectors under W2k: === NONE ===
            --------------------------------------------------------------

	    ---------------------------------------------------
            "Excellent" file/macro malware detectors under W2k:
                                            File / Macro 
					FSE (98.8% 100.0%) 
                                        AVP (96.4%  99.3%)
                                        AVK (96.1%  99.3%)
                                        CMD (94.0%  99.8%)
					FPR (94.0%  99.8%)
					FPW (94.0%  99.8%)
				        PAV (92.1%  99.0%)
            ---------------------------------------------------

Concerning only, macro malware detection 2 products are rated "perfect",
and 9 more reach grade "excellent":
	    ---------------------------------------------------
            "Perfect" macro malware detectors under W2k:
                                        FSE (100.0%) 
					SCN (100.0%)
            ---------------------------------------------------
	    "Excellent" macro malware detectors under W2k:
                                        CMD ( 99.8%)
					FPR ( 99.8%)
					FPW ( 99.8%)
					AVK ( 99.3%)
                                        AVP ( 99.3%)
				        PAV ( 99.0%)
                                        NVC ( 99.0%)
                                        INO ( 98.5%)
					RAV ( 97.0%)
             ---------------------------------------------------


   *******************************************************************
   Findings W2k.7: File/Macro Malware detection under W2k is slowly 
                   improving. NO product is "perfect" but 7 products
                   are rated "excellent" (>90% detection rate):
                                     FSE, AVP, AVK, CMD, FPR, FPW, PAV
                   ***************************************************
                   Concerning only macro malware detection, 2 products
                   are rated "perfect":                       FSE, SCN
		   And concerning macro malware detection only, 9 more
                   products are rated "excellent": 
                           CMD, FPR, FPW, AVK, AVP, PAV, NVC, INO, RAV
    ******************************************************************


Eval W2k.08: Detection of "Exotic" malware under W-2000
=======================================================
With growing exchange of objects which may be activated under other platforms (esp.
including Java, Linux etc), scanners must also detect related malware to warn
customers before activating such malcode. For the first time in VTC tests, a 
selected (small) testbed of viruses active on other platforms - we presently
call these "exotic" viruses" - has been used to determine the detection quality
of contemporary on-demand scanners (engines, signatures).

Even with "reduced" quality requirements, the following products detect exotic
malware on an initially low level of at least 70% (viruses, files):

                        virus/file
                      -------------
		FSE   (92.2%  92.7%)
                AVP   (91.3%  92.3%)
                AVK   (90.4%  92.0%)
		PAV   (77.4%  75.2%)
                SCN   (70.4%  80.3%)

   *******************************************************************
   Findings W2k.8: Exotic viruses are detected by scanners under W2k
                   only to a lesser degree. The following products
                   detect at least 70%:        FSE, AVP, AVK, PAV, SCN
   *******************************************************************


Eval W2k.SUM: Grading of W-2000 products:
=========================================
Under the scope of VTCs grading system, a "Perfect W2k AV/AM product" 
would have the following characteristics: 

    Definition (1): A "Perfect AntiVirus (AV) product"
    --------------------------------------------------
            1) Will detect ALL viral samples "In-The-Wild"
                 AND in at least 99% of zoo samples,
                 in ALL categories (file, boot and script-based
                 viruses), with always same high precision 
                 of identification and in every infected sample,
            2) Will detect ALL ITW viral samples in compressed 
                 objects for all (6) popular packers, and
            3) Will NEVER issue a False Positive alarm
                 on any sample which is not viral.
            Remark: detection of "exotic viruses" is
                    presently NOT rated.

    Definition (2): A "Perfect AntiMalware (AM) product"
    ----------------------------------------------------
            1) Will be a "Perfect AntiVirus product", 
               That is: 100% ITW detection
                        AND >99% zoo detection
                        AND high precision of identification
                        AND high precision of detection
                        AND 100% detection of ITW viruses 
                            in compressed objects,
                        AND   0% False-Positive rate,
            2) AND it will also detect essential forms
               of malicious software, at least in unpacked
               forms, reliably at high rates (>90%).
            Remark: detection of "exotic malware" is 
                    presently NOT rated.


    *****************************************************************
    In VTC test "2001-04", we found *** NO perfect W2k AV product ***
                       and we found *** No perfect W2k AM product ***
    *****************************************************************

But several products seem to approach our definition on a rather
high level (taking into account the highest value of "perfect" 
defined on 100% level and "Excellent" defined by 99% for virus 
detection, and 90% for malware detection):


    Test category:        "Perfect"              "Excellent"
    --------------------------------------------------------------
    W2k zoo file test:         ---                 AVP,AVK
    W2k zoo macro test:  CMD,FPR,FPW,FSE,SCN         ---
    W2k zoo script test:     FSE,SCN                 ---
    W2k zoo Poly test:   AVG,AVK,AVP,FSE,PAV         ---
    W2k zoo VKit test:         ---             AVK,AVP,FSE,PAV,SCN           
    W2k ITW tests:       AVK,AVP,INO,PAV,SCN         ---         
    W2k pack-tests:        AVK,AVP,PAV,SCN           ---
    W2k FP avoidance:   AV3,AVG,AVK,INO,PRO,         ---
                             RAV,SCN,VSP              
    W2k Malware Test:          ---             FSE,AVP,AVK,PAV,SCN
    ---------------------------------------------------------------
    
In order to support the race for more customer protection, we 
evaluate the order of performance in this WNT test with a simple
algorithm, by counting the majority of places (weighing "perfect" 
twice and "excellent" once), for the first places: 

    ************************************************************
    "Perfect" W-2000 AntiVirus product:      =NONE=       
    "Excellent" W-2000 AV products:
        1st place:               SCN                 (11 points)
        2nd place:               AVK                 (10 points)
        3rd place:               AVP                 ( 8 points)
        4th place:             FSE,PAV               ( 7 points)
        6th place:             AVG,INO               ( 4 points)
        8th place:    AV3,CMD,FPR,FPW,PRO,RAV,VSP    ( 2 point)
    ************************************************************
    "Perfect" W-2000 AntiMalware product:    =NONE=
    "Excellent" W-2000 AntiMalware product:
        1st place:               SCN                 (12 points)
        2nd place:               AVK                 (11 points)
        3rd place:               AVP                 ( 9 points)
        4th place:             FSE,PAV               ( 8 points)
    ************************************************************

