How reliable is the VB100% certification, really?

[solcroft]

As far as I'm aware, the latest Wildlist contains only 775 of the hundreds of thousands of viruses in existence today, and the Wildlist itself is updated monthly. In my previous experiences, I have run across multiple instances of malware that were not listed in the Wildlist. I don't know if anyone has thought of this, but why do so many people hold faith in a testing procedure that employs such a limited (and apparently, for me, incorrect) list of viruses, a list that also holds to such an archaic updating philosophy?

[dah145]

Well, my point of view regarding this VB tests is if an AV can´t pass that test is having serious trouble about detection rates... ::)

[solcroft]

I was under the assumption that the VB100% certification was an indication of an antivirus package's ability to protect users in practise. It seems that you're implying it's the minimum level of performance a package should achieve before users consider using it?

[btman]

Who doesn't have one of them now adays?

[solcroft]

So, in other words, a VB100% certification shouldn't be seriously taken as a sign of a product's real-world performance?

[dah145]

{QUOTE-> Who doesn't have one of them now adays? <-QUOTE}

That is what I am talking about... too basic

[EliteKiller]

To the non-savvy individual the VB100% award suggests that the tested products are capable of detecting 100% of all viruses. This is simply not true since no product is able to detect all viruses. These vendors have come to realize the marketing significance of these tests, and the effort they put into their products to pass the VB100 tests may not reflect the effort they put into detecting viruses outside of those included in the VB100 test set. It's possible for an AV product to pass all the VB100 tests but still have mediocre virus detection.

Those that fail to receive a VB100% should be ashamed.....cough.....MS OneCare. :P

[Blackcat]

{QUOTE-> I was under the assumption that the VB100% certification was an indication of an antivirus package's ability to protect users in practise. It seems that you're implying it's the minimum level of performance a package should achieve before users consider using it? <-QUOTE}
I would look at a variety of test sites before making any decisions about an AV. Checking the results particularly over the last 12 months or so.

Overall results over on Virus Bulletin and av-comparatives and Andreas Marx's tests would give a good indication of detection rates.

[bigc73542]

The test results here are worth a look also. http://www.westcoastlabs.org/

[MalwareDie]

I think VB100% awards are useless. They miss one sample and they fail while you on other tests they miss far mroe than 1 sample and don't fail. One fp results in a fail. You don't see other tests do that. They can have infected files in their supposed clean sets once in a while and when a specific antivirus picks up the clean file, I think all others that did not detect it should fail, since they missed a sample even if it was in a clean set. VB100% is just for marketing, especially for NOD32, no offense to NOD32, it is an excellent product.

[C.S.J]

i like the vb certification,

i know its not a massive test but it allows no fps and detection of all is needed i think, this test keeps av's on their toes as it is wildly known around the world.

[rayoflight]

{QUOTE-> VB100% is just for marketing, especially for NOD32. <-QUOTE}
I agree.
And guess who is the main sponsor of VB100% all the time?:)

[tobacco]

{QUOTE-> The test results here are worth a look also. http://www.westcoastlabs.org/ <-QUOTE}


Your joking right!

Correct me if i'm wrong but it's my understanding that AV's that fail that test are given the results of their failures and are then allowed to 'Pay' for retesting and continue 'Paying' for retesting until they pass. If i'm wrong, then i withdraw these statements and apologize. If i'm correct, then this test is completely 'Invalid'!.

[tobacco]

{QUOTE-> i like the vb certification,

i know its not a massive test but it allows no fps and detection of all is needed i think, this test keeps av's on their toes as it is wildly known around the world. <-QUOTE}


If i understand it correctly, the companies know ahead of time what is on the test list. Man, i wish it was like that back in high school. Would of been no excuse for not acing every exam knowing all the questions ahead of time. Again, another 'Invalid' test:thumbd:

[solcroft]

Your rumor may not be off the mark by too much. There are products on the WCL Checkmark list that are truly so awful that I simply cannot imagine how they managed a 100% ItW detection - you may just have explained it, maybe.

[bigc73542]

{QUOTE-> If i understand it correctly, the companies know ahead of time what is on the test list. Man, i wish it was like that back in high school. Would of been no excuse for not acing every exam knowing all the questions ahead of time. Again, another 'Invalid' test:thumbd: <-QUOTE}


well it would seem that if they use the wild list they would know what is on the test, but there are still av companys that don't pass. And when you were back in school if you would have paid attention to the teacher and done the lessons you would have known what was on the tests.

[C.S.J]

yep, i think even f-prot failed the XP one for june06 aswell as trustport and virusbuster.

its not a guarenteed pass.

[tobacco]

{QUOTE-> well it would seem that if they use the wild list they would know what is on the test, but there are still av companys that don't pass. And when you were back in school if you would have paid attention to the teacher and done the lessons you would have known what was on the tests. <-QUOTE}

In high school, there was a big difference between knowing what topics the exam covered and the actual exam questions. It is my understanding and again, please correct me if i'm wrong, pertaining to the VB Wildlist, the AV Companies aren't just told the test is on the wildlist, but which malware on the wildlist will be tested. There's a huge difference here.

[C.S.J]

hi, so how did f-prot, virusbuster and trustport (norman + bitdefender) fail the last XP test.

its also good to read how they failed, or... how one passed the test.

just as its also good to read the reports from av-comparatives too. ;D

[pipester]

I have always thought of Virus Bulletin as a well respected and credible publication.

[solcroft]

{QUOTE-> I have always thought of Virus Bulletin as a well respected and credible publication. <-QUOTE}
I'm not disputing that. But I'm certainly wondering if my interpretation of the VB100% award has been flawed all this while. VB100% pass = excellent antivirus software? Or just simply passable?

[Blackcat]

{QUOTE-> I'm not disputing that. But I'm certainly wondering if my interpretation of the VB100% award has been flawed all this while. VB100% pass = excellent antivirus software? <-QUOTE}
Definitely not. 2 examples. Cat QuickHeal and VirusBuster both have 17 passes on VB but are not thought of as First Class AVs!

[MalwareDie]

I agree. VB100% awards are junk I would never consider looking at them ever.

[C.S.J]

{QUOTE-> Definitely not. 2 examples. Cat QuickHeal and VirusBuster both have 17 passes on VB but are not thought of as First Class AVs! <-QUOTE}

but virusbuster failed the last XP one, as did f-prot and trustport.

i dont see how f-prot and trustport can fail such an easy test, if it really is that easy?