================================================
                File 7EVALLIN.TXT:
------------------------------------------------
Evaluation of results for File, Macro and Script
    Virus/Malware detection under LINUX 
           in VTC Test "2002-12":
================================================
Formatted with non-proportional font (Courier)

Content of this file:
=====================
  Eval A: Development of detection rates under Linux:
  **********************************************************************
    Eval LIN.01: Development of Linux Scanner Detection Rates
    Table LIN-A: File/Macro/Script Virus Detection Rate in last 3 VTC tests
    Eval LIN.02: In-The-Wild Detection under Linux
    Eval LIN.03: Evaluation of overall Linux AV detection rates
    Eval LIN.04: Evaluation of detection by virus classes under Linux
	    LIN.04.1 Grading the Detection of file viruses
            LIN.04.2 Grading the Detection of macro viruses
            LIN.04.6 Grading the Detection of script viruses
    Eval LIN.05: Detection of Packed Macro Viruses under Linux
    Eval LIN.06: Avoidance of False Alarms (File, Macro) under Linux
    Eval LIN.07: Detection of File, Macro and Script Malware under Linux 
    Eval LIN.SUM Grading of LINUX products
    **********************************************************************

This part of VTC "2002-12" test report evaluates the detailed
results as given in sections (files):

      6iLINUX.TXT     File/Macro/Script Viruses/Malware results    LINUX


The following *8* products participated in this scanner test for Linux products:
 	 --------------------------------------------------------
           Products submitted for aVTC test under Linux (SuSe):
	 --------------------------------------------------------
         AVK   v(def): 3.0 beta 1.1   Sig/date: December 7, 2001 
         CMD   v(def): 4.64.1  
                              SIGN.DEF   date: December 17, 2001
                              SIGN2.DEF  date: December 17, 2001
                              MACRO.DEF  date: December 16, 2001
         DRW   v(def): Dr.Web for Linux, version 4.26   
                                        date: September 22, 2001
                                     Sig/date: December 17, 2001 
         FPR   v(def): ---
         FSE   v(def): Release 4.13 build 3360  
                       Eng: F-PROT 3.10 build 701
                            sign.def     date: December 13, 2001
                            sign2.def    date: December 13, 2001
                            fsmacro.def  date: December 13, 2001
         OAV  v(def): 0.2.0              date: December 12, 2001
                    Sig: 2001.12.20.22.33  
                                     Sig/date: December 20, 2001
         RAV  v(def): 8.3.1  Eng: 8.5 for i386
                                     Sig/date: December 17, 2001
         SCN  v(def): 4.16.0  Sig: 4177  date: December 17, 2001
    	 --------------------------------------------------------      
         Remark: in one case, definition and signature dates
                 could not be derived from installed product.
 

Eval LIN.01: Development of Linux Scanner Detection Rates:
====================================================
Linux-based scanners were tested in "2002-12" for the 3rd time,
this time again (as in 1st test) for file, macro and script malware 
detection. This time, 8 scanners were available for tests, 1 less
than in last test.


Table E-Lin.1: Performance of LINUX scanners in Test 2001-04 until 2002-12:
===========================================================================
Scan I == File Virus == + ===== Macro Virus ===== + === Script Virus ====
 ner I    Detection     I        Detection        I        Detection    
-----+------------------+-------------------------+------------------------
Test I 0104  0212  Delta I 0104  0110  0212 Delta I 0104  0110  0212  Delta  
-----+------------------+-------- ----------------+------------------------
ANT  I   -     -     -   I   -   97.1    -     -  I   -   81.8    -     -
AVK  I   -   99.9    -   I   -   100%  100~   0.0 I   -   100%  99.1  -0.9
AVP  I 99.9    -     -   I 100~	 100%    -     -  I 99.8  100%    -
CMD  I 97.8  99.1  +1.3  I 100%  100%  100~  ~0.0 I 96.9  94.2  89.4  -4.8
DRW  I   -   98.3    -   I   -   99.5  99.4  -0.1 I   -   95.4  94.7  -0.7
FPR  I   -   98.9    -   I   -     -   100~    -  I   -     -   88.7    -
FSE  I 97.1  98.0  +0.9  I 100~	 100%  100~  ~0.0 I 96.9  92.3  88.1  -4.2
MCV  I   -     -     -   I   -    9.1    -     -  I   -   27.6    -     -
OAV  I   -    9.1    -   I   -     -    0.1    -  I   -     -   13.9    -
RAV  I 93.5  96.7  +3.2  I 99.6  99.5  99.9  +0.4 I 84.9  82.5  96.1 +13.6
SCN  I 99.7  99.8  +0.1  I 100%  100%  100%   0.0 I 99.8  99.8  99.5  -0.3
-----+-------------------+------------------------+------------------------
Mean : 97.6% 87.5% +1.4% I 99.9% 89.5% 74.9% +0.1 I 95.7% 86.0% 83.7% +0.5%
>10% : 97.6% 98.7%   -   I 99.9% 99.5% 99.8%   -  I 95.7% 86.0% 83.7%   -
-----+-------------------+------------------------+------------------------
Remark: for abbreviations of products (code names), see appendix A5CodNam.txt.

Evaluation: 
   Zoo file virus detection has slightly improved, if one doesnot count
       a new product which has an inacceptably low detection rate.
   Zoo macro virus detection is stable on a very high level (again,
       the new product performs inacceptably bad).
   Zoo script detection is stable but on an insufficient level.

   ********************************************************************
   Findings LIN.01: Concerning zoo virus detection, LINUX products
                    are less developped as compared to other platforms.
		
		    Detection rates 
                        for file viruses        (in zoo: 98.7%)
		    	    are significantly better 
                        than for macro viruses  (in zoo: 89.3%)
                        and  for script viruses (in zoo: 83.7%).

		    NO product detects ALL zoo file viruses,
                    but 3 products detect >99% (grade: excellent) 
                          AVK (99.9%), SCN (99.8%), CMD (99.1%)

   		    ONE product detects ALL zoo macro viruses: 
                          SCN (100.0%): grade: perfect,
                    and products detect almost 100%:
                         AVK, CMD, FPR, FSE (all: 100~),
                         RAV (99.9%): grade: "excellent"

		    NO product detects ALL zoo script viruses,
                    but 2 products detect >90% (grade: excellent):
                         SCN (99.9%), AVK (99.1%)
    *******************************************************************


Eval LIN.02: In-The-Wild (File,Macro,Script) Detection under LINUX
==================================================================
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).
					
		
Presently, 3 (out of 8) products are "perfect" as they detect ALL viruses 
and ALL infected objects in ALL classes.

                                            ITW virus/file detection
                                         ( FileV.    MacroV.   ScriptV. )
                                       ----------------------------------
"perfect" LINUX ITW scanner:      AVK   (100% 100%; 100% 100%; 100% 100%) 
                                  DRW   (100% 100%; 100% 100%; 100% 100%) 
                                  SCN   (100% 100%; 100% 100%; 100% 100%) 
"Excellent" LINUX ITW scanners:                 ----- NONE -----
                                       ----------------------------------

Concerning detection of ITW file viruses, 3 scanners are "perfect":
                               AVK, DRW, SCN: all (100% 100%)
And 1 product (out of 8) detects ALL file viruses and almost all 
samples and is "excellent":
                               RAV (100% 99.1%)

Detection of ITW macro viruses is much better developped than detection
of file viruses and infected objects:
	3 scanners are rated "perfect":
		AVK (100% 100%), DRW (100% 100%), SCN (100% 100%)
	4 scanners are rated "excellent":
                CMD, FPR, FSE: all (100% 99.9%),
                      and RAV      (100% 99.8%) 

Detection of ITW script viruses is very good, as ALMOST ALL products
(7 out of 8) detected all viruses and infected objects:
	7 scanners are rated "perfect":
		AVK, CMD, DRW, FPR, FSE, RAV, SCN: all (100% 100%)

   *******************************************************************
   Findings LIN.2:  3 AV products detect "perfectly" all ITW file,
                    macro and script viruses in all files: AVK,DRW,SCN
                    **************************************************
         Concerning detection of ITW file viruses:
                    3 "perfect" scanners:                  AVK,DRW,SCN
                    1 "excellent" scanner:                         RAV
         Concerning detection of ITW macro viruses:
                    3 "perfect" scanners:                  AVK,DRW,SCN
                    4 "excellent" scanners:            CMD,FPR,FSE,RAV
         Concerning detection of ITW script viruses:
                    7 "perfect" scanners:  AVK,CMD,DRW,FPR,FSE,RAV,SCN
   *******************************************************************
 

Eval LIN.03: Evaluation of overall LINUX 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
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: see 8problms.txt).

The following list indicates those scanners graded into one of the
upper three categories, with file, macro and script virus detection rates
in unpacked samples, and with perfect ITW virus detection (rate=100%). 
							
                                              Zoo test:         ITW test:
                                       (file/macro/script; file/macro/script) 
                                       --------------------------------------
    "Excellent" LINUX scanners: AVK     (100%  100%  99.1%;  100% 100% 100%)
                                SCN     (100%  100%  99.5%;  100% 100% 100%)
                                       -------------------------------------     


Concerning insufficient detection (<50%), we have to assign the grade 
"useless" to OAV (=Open Anti Virus) wich performs TOTALLY INACCEPTABLE:
  				       -------------------------------------
    "Useless" LINUX scanner:   OAV     ( 9.1%  0.1% 14.2%; 34.0% 0.0% 25.0%) 
  				       -------------------------------------


   *******************************************************************
   Findings LIN.03: 
                 3 LINUX products overall rated "excellent":   AVK,SCN
                 -----------------------------------------------------
                 1 "Useless" overall LINUX scanner:                OAV
   *******************************************************************


Eval LIN.04: Evaluation of detection by virus classes under LINUX:
==================================================================
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.

						
    LIN.04.1 Grading the Detection of file zoo viruses under LINUX:
    ---------------------------------------------------------------
    "Perfect" LINUX file scanners:    === NONE ===
    "Excellent" LINUX file scanners:  AVK  ( 99.9%)
                                      SCN  ( 99.8%)
                                      CMD  ( 99.1%)
    "Very Good" LINUX file scanners:  FPR  ( 98.9%)
                                      DRW  ( 98.3%)
				      FSE  ( 98.0%)
				      RAV  ( 96.7%)


    LIN.04.2 Grading the Detection of macro zoo viruses under LINUX:
    ----------------------------------------------------------------
    "Perfect" LINUX macro scanners:   SCN  (100.0%)
    "Excellent" LINUX macro scanners: AVK  ( 100~ )
                                      CMD  ( 100~ )
                                      FPR  ( 100~ )
				      FSE  ( 100~ )
				      RAV  ( 99.9%)
                                      DRW  ( 99.4%)
    "Very Good" LINUX macro scanners:  === NONE ===

          
     LIN.04.3 Grading the Detection of Script zoo viruses under LINUX:
     -----------------------------------------------------------------
    "Perfect" LINUX script scanners:    === NONE ===
    "Excellent" LINUX script scanners:  SCN  ( 99.5%)
                                        AVK  ( 99.1%)
    "Very Good" LINUX script scanners:  RAV  ( 96.1%)


   ********************************************************************
   Finding LIN.04: Performance of LINUX scanners by virus classes:
                   ----------------------------------------------------
	      Perfect scanners for file zoo:                        ---
	      Excellent scanners for file zoo:              AVK,SCN,CMD
              Very Good scanners for file zoo:          FPR,DRW,FSE,RAV
	     	
              Perfect scanners for macro zoo:                       SCN
	      Excellent scanners for macro zoo: AVK,CMD,FPR,FSE,RAV,DRW
	      Very Good scanners for macro zoo:                     ---

              Perfect scanners for script zoo:                      ---
              Excellent scanners for script zoo:                SCN,AVK
              Very Good scanners for script zoo:                    RAV
   ********************************************************************
   


Eval LIN.05: Detection of Packed File and  Macro Viruses under LINUX:
=====================================================================
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. The following 6 packers were used
in this tests: PKZIP, ARJ, LHA, RAR, WinRAR and CAB. 

  ATTENTION: for packing objects in ITW testbeds, we used WinRAR 2.0.
	     As WinRAR 2.0 didnot properly pack VTCs very large file
             testbed, this testbed was packed with WinRAR 2.9 which
             at that time was available in its final version (after
             longer availability of beta versions) since >3 months.
             Only upon evaluation, we detected that ONLY ONE product
             (RAV) was at all able to handle WinRAR 2.9 packed malware,
             at least to some degree (though not sufficient for the
             grade "perfect").

	     Consequently, this evaluation doesNOT include WinRAR.
             The following evaluation includes: ARJ,CAB,LHA,RAR,ZIP. 

					
        A "perfect" product would detect ALL packed ITW
                    file/macro viruses (100%) for 5 packers:
            -------------------------------------------------------
            "Perfect" packed file/macro virus detectors:    AVK,SCN
            -------------------------------------------------------
               
        An "excellent" product would detect ALL packed ITW
                file/macro viruses (100%) for 4 packers:
            -------------------------------------------------------
            "Excellent" packed file/macro virus detector:   DRW,RAV
            -------------------------------------------------------
 
        A "very good" product would detect ALL packed ITW
                file/macro viruses (100%) for 3 packers:
            --------------------------------------------------------
            "Very Good" packed file/macro virus detector:        ---
            --------------------------------------------------------

Some products which failed to detect all packed ITW file viruses were
able to detect packed macro viruses at a significant level:
        
  "Perfect"   packed macro virus detector (5 packers): AVK,CMD,FPR,SCN
  "Excellent" packed macro virus detector (4 packers):         DRW,RAV
  "Very Good" packed macro virus detector (3 packers):             FSE
  
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 LIN.05: Detection of packed viral objects needs improvement:
            Perfect packed ITW file/macro virus LINUX detector:    AVK,SCN
            Excellent packed ITW file/macro virus LINUX detector:  DRW,RAV
            Very Good packed ITW file/macro virus LINUX detector:      ---     
   ***********************************************************************                        

								
Eval LIN.06: Avoidance of False Alarms (File/Macro) under LINUX:
================================================================
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, only 1 (of 8) product
reported NO SINGLE False Positive alarm in file and macro zoo testbeds and 
is therefore rated "perfect":

	--------------------------------------------------------------
        "Perfect" file AND macro-FP avoiding LINUX scanners:       SCN
        --------------------------------------------------------------

In this category, products performed much better on avoiding false positive
alarms on file viruses:
	
	--------------------------------------------------------------
        "Perfect" file -FP avoiding LINUX scanners:AVK,FPR,FSE,RAV,SCN
        --------------------------------------------------------------

(In addition, OAV didnot report any false alarm, but with its inacceptably
 low detection rate this canNOT be regarded for grading).

   ********************************************************************    
   Findings LIN.06: Avoidance of False-Positive Alarms is insufficient 
                    and needs improvement.
                    FP-avoiding perfect LINUX scanners:             SCN
                    ***************************************************
                    Concerning file-FP avoidance, these products
                    are "perfect":                  AVK,FPR,FSE,RAV,SCN
                    The following products are "excellent":     DRW,CMD
                    ***************************************************
                    And concerning macro-FP avoidance, this product
                    is "perfect":                                   SCN
                    The following product  is "excellent":          RAV
   ********************************************************************


Eval LIN.07: Detection of File, Macro and Script Malware under LINUX 
====================================================================
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. In previous
tests, malware detection was tested for file and macro malware; since test "2001-10",
we also tested for FP-avoidance concerning script malware.

As VTC tests were the first to include malware detection tests, we are very glad
to observe that 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, 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"

In comparison to last test (2001-10), where we report for the first time
that 2 scanners = AVP and SCN = detected ALL specimen of file, macro and script 
malware, product behaviour has slightly deteriorated.

Generally, detection of malware needs significant further development, as mean
detection rates over platforms show:
	mean detection rate for file malware:   78.7% (89.3% for scanners >10%)
                            for macro malware:  86.0% (98.3% for scanners >10%)
                            for script malware: 52.8% (60.3% for scanners >10%)

Concerning File,Macro&Script malware detection under LINUX: (file/macro/script)
       ------------------------------------------------------------------------
      "Perfect" file,macro&script malware detectors:     ==== NONE ====
      "Excellent" file,macro&script malware detectors: AVK (97.7% 100.0% 95.7%)
                                                       SCN (92.1%  99.8% 97.7%)
       "Very Good" file,macro&script malware detectors:RAV (86.1%  99.3% 82.1%)
       ------------------------------------------------------------------------

Concerning file malware detection only, NO product is rated "perfect"
but 4 products are "excellent" and 2 products are rated "very good":
            -------------------------------------------------
            "Perfect" file malware detectors:    === NONE ===
	    "Excellent" file malware detectors:  AVK ( 97.7%)
                                                 CMD ( 92.5%)
                                                 SCN ( 92.1%)
                                                 FPR ( 91.4%)
            "Very Good" file malware detectors:  FSE ( 89.9%)
                                                 RAV ( 86.1%)
            -------------------------------------------------


Concerning macro malware detection only, 1 product is rated "perfect",
and 7 more reach grade "excellent":
            -------------------------------------------------
            "Perfect" macro malware detectors:   AVK (100.0%)
	    "Excellent" macro malware detectors: SCN ( 99.8%)
                                                 CMD ( 99.3%)
                                                 FPR ( 99.3%)
                                                 RAV ( 99.3%)
                                                 FSE ( 99.1%)
						 DRW ( 91.1%)
            -------------------------------------------------

Concerning script malware detection only, NO product is rated 
"perfect", but 2 are rated "excellent" and 1 "very good":
            -------------------------------------------------
            "Perfect" script malware detectors:  === NONE ===
	    "Excellent" script malware detectors:SCN ( 97.7%)
						 AVK ( 95.7%)
            "Very Good" script malware detectors:RAV ( 82.1%)
            -------------------------------------------------

   ********************************************************************
   Findings LIN.07: NO LINUX products can be rated "perfect" in 
                    detecting ALL file, macro & script malware specimen:

                    ***************************************************
                    2 products are rated "excellent":           AVK,SCN
                    1 product  is  rated "Very Good":           RAV
                    ***************************************************

                    Concerning single classes of malware:
		    A)  "perfect" file malware detector:            ---
                        "excellent" file malware detector: 
                                                        AVK,CMD,SCN,FPR  
		        "very good" script malware detector:    FSE,RAV    

                    B)  "perfect" macro malware detector:           AVK
                        "excellent" macro malware detector:   
				                SCN,CMD,DRW,FPR,FSE,RAV
			"very good" macro malware detector:         ---

                    C)  "perfect" script malware detector:          ---
                        "excellent" script malware detector:    SCN,AVK
			"very good" script malware detector:        RAV
   *******************************************************************


Eval LIN.SUM: Grading of LINUX products:
========================================
Under the scope of VTCs grading system, a "Perfect LINUX 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 (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 (5) 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 "2002-12", we found *** NO perfect LINUX AV product ***
                       and we found *** No perfect LINUX 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"
    ------------------------------------------------------------------
    LINUX file ITW test:        AVK,DRW,SCN               RAV
    LINUX macro ITW test:       AVK,DRW,SCN         CMD,FPR,FSE,RAV
    LINUX script ITW test:      AVK,CMD,DRW,
                              FPR,FSE,RAV,SCN
    ------------------------------------------------------------------
    LINUX file zoo test:            ---               AVK,SCN,CMD
    LINUX macro zoo test:           SCN        AVK,CMD,FPR,FSE,RAV,DRW
    LINUX script zoo test:          ---                 SCN,AVK
    ------------------------------------------------------------------
    LINUX file pack test:          AVK,SCN              DRW,RAV
    LINUX macro pack test:    AVK,SCN,CMD,FPR           DRW,RAV
    LINUX file FP avoidance: AVK,FPR,FSE,RAV,SCN        CMD,DRW
    LINUX macro FP avoidance:       SCN                   RAV  
    ----------------------------------------------------------------
    LINUX file malware test:       ---               AVK,CMD,SCN,FPR
    LINUX macro malware test:      AVK       SCN,CMD,FPR,RAV,DRW,FSE
    LINUX script malware test:     ---                   SCN,AVK              
    ----------------------------------------------------------------
    
In order to support the race for more customer protection, we 
evaluate the order of performance in this LINUX test with a simple
algorithm, by counting the majority of places (weighing "perfect" 
twice and "excellent" once), for the first places: 

    ************************************************************
    "Perfect" LINUX AntiVirus product: ===NONE===    (20 points)       
    "Excellent" LINUX AV products:
        1st place:                    SCN            (18 points)
        2nd place:                    AVK            (15 points)
        3rd place:                  DRW,RAV          (10 points)
        5th place:                  CMD,FPR          ( 8 points)
        7th place:                    FSE            ( 6 points)
    ************************************************************
    "Perfect" LINUX AntiMalware product:===NONE===   (24 points)
    "Excellent" LINUX AM products:  
        1st place:                    SCN            (21 points)
        2nd place:                    AVK            (19 points)
        3rd place:                  DRW,RAV          (11 points)
        5th place:                  CMD,FPR          (10 points)
        7th place:                    FSE            ( 7 points)
    ************************************************************


*************************************************************
In addition, we regret to grade OAV into the "useless" class!
=============================================================
