Whither Testing PrevX ??

[Longboard]

Are we any closer to seeing some objective tests for PrevX.
( i might have missed something somewhere)
I recall there was some mention of that previously from PrevX.
I know all the rhetoric re standard test modes.
Give some unencumbered $$ to AVC and let them loose.
Think of the marketing opportunities when the result is available.

[PrevxHelp]

We aren't going with AVC but we should be announcing some results very soon

[PC__Gamer]

Originally Posted by PrevxHelp

We aren't going with AVC but we should be announcing some results very soon

who by?

and why 'soon', dont you know when?

a little birdie told me you had results months ago for Prevx and that id be happy to see them, what ever happened to those ones? (or have i missed it maybe)

[PrevxHelp]

The results are already out publicly but I'm not going to publish them here yet until we make an official press release

[PC__Gamer]

Originally Posted by PrevxHelp

The results are already out publicly but I'm not going to publish them here yet until we make an official press release

what are you waiting for then, make one.

[Pleonasm]

Originally Posted by PrevxHelp

We aren't going with AVC

What considerations were influential in your decision to not engage AV-Comparatives for the testing of Prevx?

Thank you.

[Fajo]

Originally Posted by Pleonasm

What considerations were influential in your decision to not engage AV-Comparatives for the testing of Prevx?

Thank you.

My guess would be how AV-C Currently tests AV's would not work so well in a cloud based AV. At least that's the picture I get from Prevx and AV-C

[Triple Helix]

Originally Posted by Fajo

My guess would be how AV-C Currently tests AV's would not work so well in a cloud based AV. At least that's the picture I get from Prevx and AV-C

Yes I remember Joe mentioning that before!

TH

[Pleonasm]

Originally Posted by Fajo

My guess would be how AV-C Currently tests AV's would not work so well in a cloud based AV.

Historically, I agree. However, the most recent (December, 2009) dynamic test performed by AV-Comparatives employed a live Internet connection (see here). Thus, I don’t see an incompatibility between Prevx and this dynamic testing methodology -- but, if one exists, please elaborate.

[TonyW]

None of the products tested listed in that dynamic test are pure-cloud based technologies, which Prevx is. Admittedly, some use some form of in-the-cloud protection in addition to other techniques, but most are using local signatures from what I can see. However, it looks like AV-C didn't take reputation services into account; for example, see the note on page 7 ref: Norton's Download Insight. Had they used it, Symantec would apparently have detected the one malware it missed.

[Pleonasm]

Originally Posted by TonyW

None of the products tested listed in that dynamic test are pure-cloud based technologies, which Prevx is.

True, but the dynamic testing methodology employed by AV-Comparatives would provide a fair and accurate assessment for a “pure” cloud-based anti-malware application -- correct?

Originally Posted by TonyW

However, it looks like AV-C didn't take reputation services into account; for example, see the note on page 7 ref: Norton's Download Insight. Had they used it, Symantec would apparently have detected the one malware it missed.

At least in the case of Norton Internet Security 2010, “reputation” isn’t confined to the Download Insight capability, but is embedded throughout the functionality of the suite (e.g., within heuristic detection). Nonetheless, the (somewhat odd) decision by AV-Comparatives not to consider warnings from Download Insight in their assessment wouldn’t hamper the use of the same dynamic testing methodology to Prevx -- correct?

[TonyW]

Originally Posted by Pleonasm

True, but the dynamic testing methodology employed by AV-Comparatives would provide a fair and accurate assessment for a “pure” cloud-based anti-malware application -- correct?

Nonetheless, the (somewhat odd) decision by AV-Comparatives not to consider warnings from Download Insight in their assessment wouldn’t hamper the use of the same dynamic testing methodology to Prevx -- correct?

I don't know if it's correct in either case. Only AV-C would be able to tell us why they consider it not important to test pure cloud-based AM products. Thus far, they seem to have avoided such tests. It's a question that could also be levelled at AMTSO as to whether dynamic testing methods can be applied to such cloud-based technologies.

[Pleonasm]

Originally Posted by TonyW

Only AV-C would be able to tell us why they consider it not important to test pure cloud-based AM products.

It’s not at all clear that AV-Comparatives made a purposeful decision to avoid testing “pure” cloud-based anti-malware products in their most recent dynamic test. The absence of Prevx from that test may have nothing to do with the fact that the product uses no local signatures -- it may be due simply to the fact that Prevx isn’t a security suite.

If Prevx had been included in the dynamic test conducted by AV-Comparatives, however, it seems to me that the resulting analysis and assessment would have accurately and fairly reflected the performance of the product.

[Pleonasm]

Originally Posted by PrevxHelp

we should be announcing some results very soon

It’s been more than a week since this comment was posted -- any update on when the anti-virus comparative results will appear publically on this forum?

Just checkin' . . .

[PrevxHelp]

Originally Posted by Pleonasm

It’s been more than a week since this comment was posted -- any update on when the anti-virus comparative results will appear publically on this forum?

Just checkin' . . .

The results are already publicly available on the web but we're waiting for an official press release before repeating them

[Page42]

Originally Posted by PrevxHelp

The results are already out publicly but I'm not going to publish them here yet until we make an official press release

Why not point the Prevx faithful (and some not-so-faithfuls) in the direction of the public results? Unless the press release is really damage control. C'mon Joe, shake 'em loose.
(Edit... just saw Joe's post.)

[Pleonasm]

Originally Posted by PrevxHelp

The results are already publicly available on the web

Originally Posted by Page42

Why not point the Prevx faithful (and some not-so-faithfuls) in the direction of the public results?

Indeed. Why not post a URL to the testing organization’s website containing the anti-virus comparative report, for example? I fail to grasp the downside risk of immediately doing so, since the information is "already publically available on the web."

[Page42]

Well, I hope I'm not stealing PrevxHelp's thunder, but I've found the 'publicly available' listing...

Looks to me like Prevx has received the full Checkmark certification for Antivirus, Antispyware, and Antitrojan from WestCoastLabs.

Check it out here.

[Page42]

"The Checkmark Certification programs validate the functionality and performance of both content and network security technologies in a range of threat scenarios and attack vectors from standard baseline benchmarking tests against accepted industry standards, to Real Time testing that sees products under continuous test against zero day real world threats 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year."

[Triple Helix]

Good find Page42

TH

[Saraceno]

This is the January wildlist - more than 1000 samples:

http://www.westcoastlabs.com/checkma...st/?listID=131

[trjam]

you folks do realize who they show as their big winners are, dont you. Err, AVG, CA, just seems weird.

[Pleonasm]

The Checkmark Certification appears to be a comparison of an anti-malware product’s performance to standards set by West Coast Labs -- not a comparison of a product’s performance to those of its competitors. Thus, it is an “award” but not a “comparative.” Personally, I was hoping to see information on the latter theme providing empirical insight into the (audacious?) claim that Prevx is the “World's strongest, fastest, most powerful security solution” (as stated here).

P.S.: FYI -- Norton AntiVirus earned the Checkmark Certification years ago (see here), but it appears that Symantec has discontinued their relationship with West Cost Labs.

[silverfox99]

Prevx 3.0.5.50 did quite well in this comparative test?

MRG Rogue Software Infection Prevention test January 2010

http://malwareresearchgroup.com/?page_id=2

[PrevxHelp]

Originally Posted by Pleonasm

The Checkmark Certification appears to be a comparison of an anti-malware product’s performance to standards set by West Coast Labs -- not a comparison of a product’s performance to those of its competitors. Thus, it is an “award” but not a “comparative.”

Yes, this is an award which guarantees a level of proficiency in all of the areas tested - including antivirus, antitrojan, and antispyware protection - proving that Prevx provides comprehensive protection as a standalone solution as it has been verified by a third party to provide significant antivirus/trojan/spyware protection.

P.S.: FYI -- Norton AntiVirus earned the Checkmark Certification years ago (see here), but it appears that Symantec has discontinued their relationship with West Cost Labs.

I don't believe this is true: http://westcoastlabs.com/checkmark/p...upID=27&from=v

Symantec was last tested in 2009 multiple times and has passed most, but not all of the tests of this past year.