X-Recipient: archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com From: Wilfried Subject: Re: BitDefender again Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2009 17:05:19 +0200 Lines: 24 Message-ID: <0lqf9512ar202447k7cjh5gmv2n23o3pg8@4ax.com> References: <20090826013626 DOT GC9672 AT ednor DOT casa DOT cgf DOT cx> <4A9521B7 DOT 2030806 AT gmail DOT com> <27ka95pcungltfpr67k9m9mcjdot5gmnjs AT 4ax DOT com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com "Michael Kairys" wrote: > > (3) http://www.f-prot.com > > Thanks for the suggestion... Seems some reviews give them low marks on > detection rates: > http://www.virusbtn.com/vb100/RAP/RAP-quadrant-Feb-Aug09.jpg > http://www.virus-centre.com/ > > ... and some low marks on features (19 out of 20): > http://anti-virus-software-review.toptenreviews.com/index2.html Very interesting, thank you! I can well live with the limited features, but if the low detection rate comes true it would indeed worry me. I also had a look into http://www.av-comparatives.org/ but unfortunately they did not test f-prot. Regards -- Wilfried Hennings -- Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/ Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple