=========================================
File 7EVALDOS.TXT
-----------------------------------------
Evaluation of VTC Scanner Test "2001-10":
=========================================
Formatted with non-proportional font (Courier)

Content of this file:
=====================
  Eval A: Development of detection rates under DOS:
  -------------------------------------------------
    Eval DOS.01: Development of DOS Scanner Detection Rates
    Table DOS-A2: Macro/Script Virus Detection Rate in last 10 VTC tests
    Eval DOS.02: In-The-Wild Detection under DOS
    Eval DOS.03: Evaluation of overall DOS AV detection rates
    Eval DOS.04: Evaluation of detection by virus classes under DOS
             DOS.04.2 Grading the Detection of macro viruses under DOS
             DOS.04.3 Grading the Detection of script viruses under DOS
    Eval DOS.05: Detection of Packed Macro Viruses under DOS
    Eval DOS.06: Avoidance of False Alarms (Macro) under DOS
    Eval DOS.07: Detection of Macro and Script Malware under DOS 
    Eval DOS.SUM Grading of DOS products
  **********************************************************************

This part of VTC "2001-10" test report evaluates the detailed
results as given in sections (files):
    6dDOS.TXT    Macro+Script Viruses/Malware results         DOS


The following *14* products participated in this test for DOS products:
	-----------------------------------------------------------------
           Products submitted for aVTC test under DOS:
	-----------------------------------------------------------------
    	   ANT     v(def): 6.8.0.56 	    sig: June 22,2001
    	   AVA     v(def): 7.70-53    	    sig: June 25,2001
    	   AVG     v(def):         	    sig: June   ,2001
    	   AVK     v(def): 3.0 Build 133    sig: June  4,2001
    	   AVP     v(def): 3.0 build 135    sig: June 22,2001
    	   CMD     v(def): 4.61.5           sig: June 25,2001
    	   DRW     v(def): 4.25             sig: June 20,2001
    	   FPR     v(def): 3.09d     	    sig: June 25,2001
    	   MR2     v(def): 1.17       	    sig: June   ,2001
    	   NAV     v(def):                  sig: June 22,2001
    	   PAV     v(def): 3.0 Build 131    sig: June  8,2001
    	   RAV     v(def): 8.1.001          sig: June 25,2001
    	   SCN     v(def): 4.14.0
                           scan eng:4.1.40  sig: June 20,2001
           VSP     v(def): 12.22.1	    sig: June   ,2001
  	-----------------------------------------------------------------


Eval DOS.01: Development of Scanner Detection Rates under DOS:
==============================================================
DOS-based scanners become less important as AV producers invest more work into the 
development of the W32-related platforms. In this test, 21 scanners for W32 platforms
were submitted whereas "only" 14 scanners were submitted for DOS.

The following table summarizes results of file and macro virus detection under DOS 
in last 9 VTC tests:

Table DOS-A2: Macro/Script Virus Detection Rate in last 9 VTC tests under DOS:
==============================================================================
      ------------------ Macro Virus Detection --------------- + ScriptVirus Detection 
SCAN  9702 9707 9802 9810 9903 9909 0004 0008 0104 0110  Delta I 0008 0104 0110  Delta                   
NER     %    %    %    %    %    %    %    %    %    %     %   I  %     %    %     %
---------------------------------------------------------------+----------------------
ALE   96.5 66.0 49.8   -    -   -    -    -     -    -     -   I   -    -    -     -
ANT   58.0 68.6 80.4 56.6   -   -   85.9 93.3   -  97.0    -   I 55.2   -  81.8    -
AVA   99.3 98.2 80.4 97.2 95.9 94.6 93.7  -   92.0 93.0  +1.0  I   -  30.0 33.7  +3.7
AVG   25.2 71.0 27.1 81.6 82.5 96.6   -   -   98.3 98.4  +0.1  I   -  57.9 62.9  +5.0
AVK     -    -    -  99.7 99.6   -    -  100~ 100~ 100%   0.0  I 91.5 99.4 100%  +0.6
AVP   99.3 99.0 99.9 100% 99.8 100% 99.9   -  100~ 100%   0.0  I   -  99.8 100%  +0.2
CMD     -    -    -    -    -  99.5 100% 100~   -  100~    -   I 93.5   -  93.9    -
DRW   90.2 98.1 94.3 99.3 98.3   -  98.4 97.6 98.0 99.5  +1.5  I 60.8 95.6 95.4  -0.2
DSE   97.9 98.9 100% 100% 100%   -    -    -    -    -     -   I   -    -    -     -
FMA   98.6 98.2 99.9   -    -    -    -    -    -    -     -   I   -    -    -     -
FPR   43.4 36.1 99.9 99.8 99.8 99.7 100% 100~ 100% 100~   0.0  I 90.5 96.9 94.6  -2.3
FSE     -    -  99.9 90.1 99.6 97.6 99.9   -    -    -     -   I   -    -    -     -
FWN   97.2 96.4 91.0 85.7   -    -    -    -    -    -     -   I   -    -    -     -
HMV     -    -  98.2 99.0 99.5   -    -    -    -    -     -   I   -    -    -     -
IBM   65.0 88.8 99.6   -    -    -    -    -    -    -     -   I   -    -    -     -
INO     -    -  90.3 95.2 99.8 99.5 99.7 99.7 99.3   -     -   I 77.8 66.0   -     -
IRS     -  69.5 48.2   -  89.1   -    -    -    -    -     -   I   -    -    -     -
ITM     -  81.8 58.2 68.6 76.3   -    -    -    -    -     -   I   -    -    -     -
IVB     -    -    -    -    -    -    -    -    -    -     -   I   -    -    -     -
MR2     -    -    -    -    -  69.6   -    -  44.2 40.8  -3.4  I   -  85.1 83.3  -1.8
NAV   80.7 86.4 98.7 99.8 99.7 98.6 97.4 97.0 93.8 99.5  +5.7  I 24.8 31.2 94.2 +63.0
NOD     -    -    -    -  99.8 100% 99.4   -    -    -     -   I   -    -    -     -
NVC   13.3 96.6 99.2 90.8   -  99.6 99.9 99.9 99.8   -     -   I 83.7 88.5   -     -
PAN     -    -  73.0   -    -    -    -    -    -    -     -   I   -    -    -     -
PAV     -    -  93.7 100% 99.5 98.8 99.9   -  100~ 100%   0.0  I   -  99.8 100%  +0.2
PCC     -  67.6   -    -    -    -    -    -    -    -     -   I   -    -    -     -
PCV     -    -    -    -    -    -    -    -    -    -     -   I   -    -    -     -
PRO     -    -    -    -  81.5   -    -    -    -    -     -   I   -    -    -     -
RAV     -    -    -  99.5 99.2   -    -    -    -  99.5    -   I   -    -  82.5    -
SCN   95.1 97.6 99.0 98.6 100% 100% 100% 100~ 100% 100%   0.0  I 85.6 100% 99.8  -0.2
SWP   87.4 89.1 98.4 98.6   -  98.4 98.4   -    -    -     -   I   -    -    -     -
TBA   72.0 96.1 99.5 98.7   -    -    -    -    -    -     -   I   -    -    -     -
TSC     -    -  81.9 76.5 59.5 69.6   -    -    -    -     -   I   -    -    -     -
TNT     -    -    -    -    -    -    -    -    -    -     -   I   -    -    -     -
VDS   16.1  9.9  8.7   -    -    -    -    -    -    -     -   I   -    -    -     -
UKV     -    -    -    -    -    -    -   0.0   -    -     -   I  0.0   -    -     -
VET     -  94.0 97.3 97.5 97.6   -    -    -    -    -     -   I   -    -    -     -
VIT     -    -    -    -    -    -    -    -    -    -     -   I   -    -    -     -
VRX     -    -    -    -    -    -    -    -    -    -     -   I   -    -    -     -
VBS     -    -    -    -    -    -    -    -    -    -     -   I   -    -    -     -
VHU     -    -    -    -    -    -    -    -    -    -     -   I   -    -    -     -
VSA     -    -  80.6   -    -    -    -    -    -    -     -   I   -    -    -     -
VSP     -    -    -    -    -    -    -    -   0.0  0.0   0.0  I   -  85.3 84.0  -1.3
VSW     -    -  83.0   -    -    -    -    -    -    -     -   I   -    -    -     -
VTR    6.3   -    -    -    -    -    -    -    -    -     -   I   -    -    -     -
XSC     -    -    -    -    -    -    -    -    -    -     -   I   -    -    -     -
---------------------------------------------------------------+----------------------
Mean  69.6 80.9 83.8 89.6 93.6 88.2 98.0 98.6 93.8 87.7% +0.4% I 66.4 79.7 86.2% +6,1%
Without extreme values:                           (94.4%)      I                (+0.4%)
---------------------------------------------------------------+----------------------

Concerning macro viruses, "mean" detection rate is further declining (down to 87.7% after 93.8%).
Even if one doesnot count scanners with extremely low detection rates (<30%), the mean detection
rate of 94.4% is inacceptably low. On the other side, products having participated in last VTC 
tests succeeded to raise their detection rates (+0.4%).

Concerning script viruses which is presently the fastest growing sector, the detection rate
is improving (now 86.2%) but is still regarded as insufficient. But one scanner improved
his detection rate by impressive 63%; the other (10) scanners which participated in last 
test succeeded to improve their detection rate by 0.4%"in the mean".

   ********************************************************************
   Findings DOS.1: For DOS, macro zoo virus detection rates in the mean 
                   needs improvement but several products detect ALL or
                   almost all macro zoo viruses. The situation is worse
                   for script virus detection. 
                   ----------------------------------------------------
                   Now, 4 (of 14) products detect ALL macro zoo viruses 
                   and are rated "perfect":             AVK,AVP,PAV,SCN
                   5 more products are "excellent": CMD,FPR,DRW,NAV,RAV
                   ----------------------------------------------------
		   Detection rates for script viruses are improving
                   (now 86.2%) but need still significant work.
	           Here, 3 (of 14) products detect ALL script zoo
                   viruses and are rated "perfect":         AVK,AVP,PAV
		   1 more product is "excellent":                   SCN
                   ****************************************************
                   Overall, 3 products detect ALL macro AND script 
                   zoo viruses and are "Overall Perfect":   AVK,AVP,PAV
                   And 1 product is rated "excellent" as it detects
                   >99% of all zoo viruses:                         SCN
   ********************************************************************


Eval DOS.02: In-The-Wild (Macro,Script) Detection under DOS
===========================================================
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
macro and script viruses (it must be observed that detection
and identification is not completely reliable).

The following 6 DOS products (of 14) reach 100% for macro AND
script virus and file detection and are rated "perfect" in this 
category (alphabetically ordered):

                                              ITW Viruses&Files
                                        (         Macro   Script)
                                        -------------------------
"Perfect" ITW macro/script scanners: 
                        	AVK      (        100.0%  100.0%) 
				AVP      (        100.0%  100.0%) 
                                DRW      (        100.0%  100.0%)
				NAV      (        100.0%  100.0%) 
				PAV      (        100.0%  100.0%) 
                                SCN      (        100.0%  100.0%) 
                                         ------------------------

In comparison, ITW macro virus detection is better developped compared
to ITW script virus detection. Concerning ITW macro detection, now 9 (of 14) 
scanners detect ALL ITW macro viruses:			     
                                         AVG,AVK,AVP,CMD,DRW,FPR,NAV,PAV,SCN

Concerning ITW script detection, now 6 (of 14) scanners detect ALL ITW
script viruses:
						     AVK,AVP,DRW,NAV,PAV,SCN
 
   *************************************************************
   Findings DOS.2:  6 AV products (out of 14) detect ALL
                    In-The-Wild macro and script viruses in
	            > 99.9% of files:
				    AVK, AVP, DRW, NAV, PAV, SCN
                    --------------------------------------------
                    8 products can be rated "perfect" concerning 
                    detection of ITW macro viruses:
                             AVG,AVK,AVP,CMD,DRW,FPR,NAV,PAV,SCN
                    --------------------------------------------  
                    And 6 products are rated "perfect" as they
                    detect ALL ITW script viruses:
               	                         AVK,AVP,DRW,NAV,PAV,SCN
   *************************************************************
                    
 
Eval DOS.03: Evaluation of overall DOS 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 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 macro and script virus detection 
rates in unpacked samples, and with perfect ITW virus detection 
(rate=100%). 

Under DOS, *3* product reached 100% detection rate for macro and 
script viruses, both zoo and In-The-Wild, and could be rated "perfect".
And 1 scanner is graded "Excellent" (>99%), and 1 more scanner is
rated "very good" (>95%):

                                   (zoo:     macro/script;     macro/script:ITW) 
                                   ----------------------------------------------
    "Perfect" DOS scanners:    AVK      (      100% 100% ;      100% 100% )
                               AVP      (      100% 100% ;      100% 100% )
                               PAV      (      100% 100% ;      100% 100% )
                                   ----------------------------------------------     
    "Excellent" DOS scanners:  SCN      (      100% 99.8 ;      100% 100% ) 
                                   ----------------------------------------------
    "Very Good" DOS scanners:  DRW      (      99.5 95.4 ;      100% 100% )  
			           ----------------------------------------------

   *****************************************************************
   Findings DOS.3: 3 "perfect" overall scanners:       AVK, AVP, PAV
                   1 "excellent" overall scanner:                SCN
                   1 "very good" overall scanner :               DRW 
   *****************************************************************


Eval DOS.04: Evaluation of detection by virus classes under DOS:
================================================================
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 macro and script viruses. 

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


     DOS.04.2 Grading the Detection of macro viruses under DOS
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    "Perfect" DOS macro scanners:   AVK  (100.0%)
				    AVP  (100.0%) 
				    PAV  (100.0%)   
				    SCN  (100.0%)    
    "Excellent" DOS macro scanners: CMD   (100~) 
				    FPR   (100~) 
				    DRW  ( 99.5%)  
				    NAV  ( 99.5%)  
                                    RAV  ( 99.5%)  
    "Very Good" DOS macro scanners: AVG  ( 98.4%) 


     DOS.04.3 Grading the Detection of Script viruses under DOS:
     -----------------------------------------------------------
    "Perfect" DOS script scanners:   AVK (100.0%) 
  				     AVP (100.0%) 
				     PAV (100.0%) 
    "Excellent" DOS script scanners: SCN ( 99.8%)
    "Very Good" DOS script scanners: DRW ( 95.4%)


   ************************************************************************
   Finding DOS.4: Performance of DOS scanners by virus classes:
                  ---------------------------------------------
               Perfect scanners for macro zoo+ITW:          AVK,AVP,PAV,SCN
               Excellent scanners for macro zoo+ITW:    CMD,FPR,DRW,NAV,RAV
               Perfect scanners for script zoo+ITW:             AVK,AVP,PAV
               Excellent scanners for script zoo+ITW:                   SCN
   ************************************************************************
   

Eval DOS.05: Detection of Packed Macro Viruses under DOS
========================================================
Detection of 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 6 popular methods 
(PKZIP, ARJ, LHA, RAR, WinRAR and CAB) are also detected. 

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
be unchanged to ease comparison and improvement.


        A "perfect" product would detect ALL packed viral macro 
 		    samples (100%) for all (6) packers:
            ---------------------------------------------------------
            "Perfect" packed virus detectors: AVK,AVP,CMD,FPR,PAV,SCN
            ---------------------------------------------------------
            Here, significant progress was made as only 1 product was
            rated "perfect" in last test!
               
        An "excellent" product would reach 100% detection of
            packed viral samples (ITW macro) for at least 5 packers:
            --------------------------------------------------------
            "Excellent" packed macro virus detector:             ---
            --------------------------------------------------------
 
        A "very good" product would detect viral samples (ITW macro)
            for at least 4 packers:
            ------------------------------------------------------
            "Very Good" packed macro virus detector: AVG, DRW, RAV
            ------------------------------------------------------

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 DOS.5: Detection of packed viral objects needs improvement
                Perfect packed macro virus DOS detectors: 
 						AVK,AVP,CMD,FPR,PAV,SCN
                Excellent packed macro virus DOS detector:          ---
                Very Good packed macro virus DOS detector:  AVG,DRW,RAV
   ********************************************************************                        


Eval DOS.06: Avoidance of False Alarms (Macro,Script) under DOS:
================================================================
First introduced in VTC test "1998-10", a set of clean (and non-malicious) 
objects has been added to the 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"

Regarding the ability of scanners to avoid FP alarms, 6 (out of 14) products 
reported NO SINGLE False Positive alarm in macro zoo testbeds and are 
therefore rated "perfect":

	    ----------------------------------------------------------------
            "Perfect" FP avoiding DOS scanners: ANT, AVA, AVG, AVK, PAV, SCN
            ----------------------------------------------------------------
	    Moreover, VSP avoids FPs, but at low level of virus detection.
	    As all other products had more than 2.5% false alarms, no product
            was rated "excellent" (<0.5%) and "very good" (<2.5%).


   ****************************************************************     
   Findings DOS.6: Avoidance of False-Positive Alarms is improving
                   though still regarded insufficient.
                   FP-avoiding perfect DOS scanners:  
                                       ANT, AVA, AVG, AVK, PAV, SCN
   ****************************************************************


Eval DOS.07: Detection of Macro and Script Malware under DOS 
============================================================
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 macro
and script 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 macro AND script malware detection:
                                                 Macro/Script Malware
      ---------------------------------------------------------------
      "Perfect" macro/script malware detectors:   AVP (100.0% 100.0%)   
                                                  SCN (100.0% 100.0%)
      "Excellent" macro/script malware detectors: AVK ( 99.8% 100.0%)
                                                  PAV ( 99.8% 100.0%)
      "Very Good" macro/script malware detector:  RAV ( 97.7%  81.8%)
      ---------------------------------------------------------------

Macro malware detection is MUCH better developped than script malware
detection:
                                                    Macro Malware
               --------------------------------------------------
               "Perfect" macro malware detectors:    AVP (100.0%) 
                                                     SCN (100.0%)
      	       "Excellent" macro malware detectors:  AVK ( 99.8%)
                                                     PAV ( 99.8%) 
                                                     FPR ( 99.5%)
                                                     CMD ( 99.5%)  
                                                     RAV ( 97.7%) 
                                                     DRW ( 90.8%) 
               "Very Good" macro malware detector:   NAV ( 86.4%)
                                                     AVG ( 82.6%)                                                      
					             ANT ( 80.0%) 
               -------------------------------------------------- 

Conncerning script malware detection, much work in this fastly growing
area must still be invested:
                                                   Script Malware
               --------------------------------------------------
               "Perfect" script malware detectors:   AVP (100.0%)
                                                     AVK (100.0%)
                                                     PAV (100.0%) 
                                                     SCN (100.0%)
      	       "Excellent" macro malware detectors:    -------
               "Very Good" macro malware detector:   RAV ( 81.8%)
	       --------------------------------------------------

   *******************************************************************
   Findings DOS.7: Macro and Script Malware detection under DOS is 
                   impressively improving: 
		      2 products detect ALL macro and script
                        malware samples and are "perfect":     AVP,SCN
                      2 products are rated "excellent":        AVK,PAV
                      1 product is rated "very good":              RAV
                   ***************************************************
                   Concerning macro malware detection:
                      2 products detect ALL macro malware
                        samples and are rated "perfect":       AVP,SCN
                      6 products are rated "excellent":
                                               AVK,PAV,FPR,CMD,RAV,DRW
                      3 products are rated "very good":    NAV,AVG,ANT
                   ***************************************************
		   Concerning script malware detection:
                      4 products detect ALL script malware samples
                        and are rated "perfect":       AVP,AVK,PAV,SCN
                      0 product is rated "excellent":              ---
                      1 product is rated "very good":              RAV
    ******************************************************************


Eval DOS.SUM: Grading of DOS products:
======================================
Under the scope of VTCs grading system, a "Perfect DOS 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 99.9% of zoo samples,
                 in ALL categories (macro 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.

    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%).


    *********************************************************************
    In VTC test "2001-10", we found ** 2 perfect DOS AV products: AVK,PAV
                           **********************************************
                       but we found   **** No perfect DOS 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"
    -----------------------------------------------------------------
    DOS zoo macro test:      AVK,AVP,PAV,SCN      CMD,FPR,DRW,NAV,RAV
    DOS zoo script test:       AVK,AVP,PAV                SCN
    DOS ITW tests:       AVK,AVP,DRW,NAV,PAV,SCN         ---
    DOS pack-tests:      AVK,AVP,CMD,FPR,PAV,SCN         ---
    DOS FP avoidance:    ANT,AVA,AVG,AVK,PAV,SCN         ---
    -----------------------------------------------------------------
    DOS Macro Malware Test:      AVP,SCN      AVK,PAV,FPR,CMD,RAV,DRW
    DOS Script Malware Test: AVP,AVK,PAV,SCN             ---
    -----------------------------------------------------------------
    

In order to support the race for more customer protection, we 
evaluate the order of performance in this DOS test with a simple
algorithm, by counting the majority of places (weighing "perfect" 
twice and "excellent" once), for the first places: 

    ************************************************************
    "Perfect" DOS AntiVirus product: AVK,PAV         (10 points)
    ************************************************************  
    "Excellent" DOS AV products:
        3rd place:                     SCN           ( 9 points)
        4th place:                     AVP           ( 8 points)
        5th place:               CMD,DRW,FPR,NAV     ( 3 points)
        9th place:                 ANT,AVA,AVG       ( 2 points)
       12th place:                     RAV           ( 1 point )
     ************************************************************
    "Perfect" DOS AntiMalware product: =NONE=        (14 points)
    "Excellent" DOS AntiMalware product:
        1st place:                 AVK,PAV,SCN       (13 points)
        4th place:                     AVP           (12 points)
        5th place:                     DRW           ( 5 points)
        6th place:                   FPR,CMD         ( 4 points)
        8th place:                     RAV           ( 2 points)
    ************************************************************
