Investigation in Progress by AV Comparatives

Discussion in 'other anti-virus software' started by Charyb, Apr 26, 2015.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. hawki

    hawki Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2008
    Posts:
    6,065
    Location:
    DC Metro Area
    I believe you are not correct.

    The announcement does not specify the test. If you are going by the blue header with arrows on top of the blog page, that's just AV-Cs Blog navigation method. It just happened to be the case that the prior post was about the March Detection Test.

    Actually the announcement could be interpreted as meaning that the fix was applicable to all AV-Cs tests.

    "Investigation in progress

    AV-C has uncovered an infringement of the testing agreement by one of the vendors participating in its tests..."

    http://weblog.av-comparatives.org/?p=501

    I have under underlined only to emphasize that I have totally changed this post. I originally agreed with you and said "Good Catch tgell" I got confused by the navigation header too when you called it out.
     
    Last edited: Apr 27, 2015
  2. tgell

    tgell Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2004
    Posts:
    1,097
    @hawki,

    Thanks for the correction. After looking at the blog again I agree that it was a link to the previous blog post.
     
  3. hawki

    hawki Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2008
    Posts:
    6,065
    Location:
    DC Metro Area
    Yeah it's an easy mistake to make. I made the same mistake when I looked at the page again after reading your post. But then i read the statement again and it was clear that it was not addressing any particular test. Playing with the blue header lead me to the discovery that it was merely a navigation tool. A navigation tool that can be misleading as it was to us, because it can be misread as being the title of the the subject of the article on that page. But at this point a misleading navigation header appears to be the least of AV-C's problems.
     
  4. metmichallica

    metmichallica Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2005
    Posts:
    183
    I don't see why release a good version of a program to av-comparatives and a crappy one to the public? As for Qihoo I think it is a good program. I doubt it's them.
     
  5. roger_m

    roger_m Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2009
    Posts:
    8,627
    That's not the case. Just because the one supplied to av-comparatives is designed to perform better in testing does not mean that the standard version performs badly.
     
  6. metmichallica

    metmichallica Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2005
    Posts:
    183
    Then what is the point of making a product up just for av comparatives? I noticed one thing though. In the recent March test Qihoo Antivirus was tested are they talking about Qihoo Essential?
     
  7. roger_m

    roger_m Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2009
    Posts:
    8,627
    So it performs better than other antiviruses. Some people take notice of the results of testing, and base their choice of antivirus on the top performing ones.
     
  8. metmichallica

    metmichallica Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2005
    Posts:
    183
    It's funny they didn't mention who it is.
     
  9. WildByDesign

    WildByDesign Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2013
    Posts:
    2,587
    Location:
    Toronto, Canada
    We all know who it is already. Although I am not certain of the second one if there is another.
     
  10. metmichallica

    metmichallica Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2005
    Posts:
    183
    Who is it? So it's Qihoo?
     
  11. WildByDesign

    WildByDesign Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2013
    Posts:
    2,587
    Location:
    Toronto, Canada
    Sorry but Mod's don't want names at the moment, have to wait until AV-C blog is updated in the next day or so.
     
  12. SweX

    SweX Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2007
    Posts:
    6,429
    Better marketing material.
    I won't tell. Just wait and see.
     
  13. coolcfan

    coolcfan Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2008
    Posts:
    130
    For the "specially engineered" one I have another vendor in mind. Let's see.
     
  14. clocks

    clocks Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2007
    Posts:
    2,787
  15. metmichallica

    metmichallica Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2005
    Posts:
    183
    I installed Qihoo Essentials today. Did you know it is possible for the Avira and Bitdefender engine to protect you in realtime? I just found out today it is, but you have to enable it by changing your settings to security instead of balanced.
     
  16. avman1995

    avman1995 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2012
    Posts:
    944
    Location:
    india
    Wow!!! Stay away from av-comparatives...Money money :blink:
     
  17. metmichallica

    metmichallica Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2005
    Posts:
    183
    What do you mean by that? I thought av-comparatives was nonprofit.
     
  18. avman1995

    avman1995 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2012
    Posts:
    944
    Location:
    india
    **reported remarks removed**

    I was never impressed by AV-C test methodologies especially the sample set number and the lack of further result information.A product like trend micro can score 100% in real world because its web filter is amazing but its signatures aren't that good in reality and if the same malware comes from a USB stick then the user would get infected.AV-C wouldn't tell us that they have no idea if the AV engine caught the sample or the web filter did.

    Just by having a amazing web filter can give you 100% in AV-C real world test.But in reality you will get infected from some other gateway.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 28, 2015
  19. roger_m

    roger_m Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2009
    Posts:
    8,627
    I thought that had been common knowledge for months.
     
  20. metmichallica

    metmichallica Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2005
    Posts:
    183
    I did not know. I was using Norton.
     
  21. simmersK00L

    simmersK00L Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2013
    Posts:
    323
    Location:
    USA
    yeah that was my first thought... o_O
     
  22. trjam

    trjam Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2006
    Posts:
    9,102
    Location:
    North Carolina USA
    it will be interesting to see how it plays out but no, it wont be the end of the world. This isn't the first time of something like this and in reality, probably is more common place then we realize.
     
  23. Eggnog

    Eggnog Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2012
    Posts:
    129
    Location:
    United States
    It looks like AV Test and Virus Bulletin may be collaborating with AV Comparatives on the investigation.

    Link
     
  24. WildByDesign

    WildByDesign Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2013
    Posts:
    2,587
    Location:
    Toronto, Canada
    Very good news. They are competitors, in a way, but good that they are collaborating on this important issue. It will be interesting to see how this plays out today.

    EDIT: Blog updated as well.

     
    Last edited: Apr 28, 2015
  25. hawki

    hawki Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2008
    Posts:
    6,065
    Location:
    DC Metro Area
    To embellish on the point made by Roger M. above, some have argued that some of the individual tests used by AV-Comparatives do no not give an an accurate appraisal of the protection the product offers in "the real world." Symantec, for example, takes this position and for that reason does not participate in AV-C's tests. It has an issue with at least one of AV-C's tests and to be eligible for testing by AV-C you have to take part in all of it's tests. I believe that Webroot has taken a similar position. These companies had the integrity to stop taking part in the AV-C testing.

    The offending company here, instead of withdrawing it's product from the testing, jerry-rigged it's product to tailor it to the tests performed by AV-C. That does not necessarily mean that it's publicly available product does not offer excellent protection under real world circumstances. It's underhanded action was to make a special edition that would perform well under the AV-C tests, rather than taking the honorable approach taken by Symantec and Webroot.

    The alternative theory is that the offending company(ies) product offers substandard protection and it tried to give a misleading impression of it's product's capabilities by making a special edition to run in AV-C's testing.
     
    Last edited: Apr 28, 2015
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.