eset advertising 100% detection??

no av can offer 100% detection... just curious what led to this marketing strategy?? i understand about the vb100 tests but this could mislead people with the 100% statement. i LOVE eset but do think this should have been worded different

 

I dunno man, that seems like too big of a promise. Like you said, No Antivirus offers 100% detection. I honestly think they should take that statement off their advertisements. If a costumer were ever to get infected, they can use that statement against the company. I think their choice of words could quite possibly backfire on ESET.

 

It can't be used against ESET as the ad clearly states the stats pertain to VB100 tests which are explained below (ie. that they are based on In-the-Wild threats).

 

no if you re-read my post i did state i saw the vb100 tests... its still imo a misleading title on the page.. it should specifically say 100% detection and 0 false positives IN VB100 TESTS or testing or something similar...the 100% detection being so large and the vb100 under it is a bit misleading i showed it to a few people and they had to read it a few times before they even asked me if the vb100 had anything to do with it.. just from a consumer standpoint here.... i also said i love eset and use it on more than 25 machines. i just think they need to rethink that add

 

Agreed, if they got infected they would definitely have cause to take action on the basis of that headline; the follow up text is of an explanatory rather than qualifying nature. On the plus side it's good for consumers - ESET have just kindly guaranteed their users that any in the world malware will be detected

 

A statement like "never having missed detecting an "In-the-Wild" worm or virus" without any further qualification gives the impression that the VB100 wildlist contains ALL "In-the-Wild" worms and viruses, which is clearly incorrect and misleading.

 

They state they they've reached 100% detection with 0 false positives in the VB tests, I don't see the problem.

Maybe misleading to some, but I've seen much more misleading advertising and pure lies, like some advertising on TV for example.

 

as i said to us it may not be misleading but show it to someone who has no knowledge at all about av's and this type of thing which is why i posted it since those are the people i asked. they did not understand the add and are normal consumers..i personally understand the add but many will not

 

The very simple question is - are you sure it is not intentionally misleading, like most of the ads. If you have watched the movie "Interstate 60: Episodes of the Road", there is an interesting take on commercials.

It is very difficult though, because if you sound insecure or too balanced in your ads - for ex. well we can offer in reality 80% (though 80% is quite a big number for detection of new threats) detection, or we are great but we cannot guarantee you 100% detection, then these same regular customers will turn to the misleading ads of a competitor. Often ads tell what you want to hear, not the reality. Unfortunately this is how things are. In AV field as well as in most other fields you have to educate yourself if you want to make good choices. Or of course ask a friend whom you trust and is familiar with the AV world.

 

If you read it carefuly, they claimed "never having missed an In-the-Wild worm or virus" which is not the same thing as claiming 100% detection of the VB100 wildlist. The term "In-the-Wild" will be understood by many people to be a reference to all malware currently in circulation. The statement is therefore both misleading and factually incorrect.

 

why not simply state A "PERFECT" vb100 score since what was it 1998... or never missed a in the wild virus in the vb100 tests or 100% detection IN THE VB100 TESTING ... the vb100 part should be more noticable and understandable for the basic user

 

I totally agree with you.

 

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

There is no such thing as an av product with 100% detection or 100% safe removal.

These claims are made by the marketing departments of firms.

 

You're the one who needs to read it more carefully. Your quote above is contained within the sentence that talks about their record on the VB100. *

Hyperbole? Sure, most marketing is. Deliberately misleading? I don't think so.

 

*
I didn't say that the statement by ESET was deliberately misleading, only that it is factually incorrect and therefore potentially misleading. I am perfectly well aware that they were talking about their VB100 record but a statement like "never having missed detecting an In-the-Wild worm or virus" falls outside of that context unless the VB100 wildlist contains all In-the-Wild worms and viruses or the term In-the-Wild is redefined from its usual meaning.

I didn't speculate on their reasons for wording it the way they did. You do agree though that it is hyperbole, which is the point I was making. Had they said: "100% detection of malware on the VB100 wildlist" the statement would have been accurate if not as impressive from a marketing perspective. That's still a very good record though without the unnecessary exaggeration.

 

Misleading, maybe, but just like advertising in general.

 

I agree.

 

Not 1hundred by a long shot.

I had to format months ago after getting a nasty piece of malware,even Combofix was useless against it.

 

You are passing judgement without having a firm grasp of the facts. The context of the VB100 dictates the definition of "in the wild", since it is their definition that is the basis for the award being cited. Googling "VB100 award" yields this link: http://www.wildlist.org/ which lays out what is needed to win the award. This link goes into more detail: http://www.virusbtn.com/vb100/about/100procedure.xml . Finally, this is a link to the wildlist organization which collects the malware: http://www.wildlist.org/

If you make assumptions, you will be very likely to be mislead in this and many, if not most statements and ads...but that is your fault for failing to educate yourself.

 

ITW threats are the most important because they are hitting to users.
All products should get the VB100 logo, meaning it have a good quality in the engine (coverage for current threats and 0 FP)

You dont want your product starting with the left foot.

 

AFAIK, neither Virus Bulletin nor the WildList Organization have ever defined "in-the-wild" to mean just the samples on the WildList. It's rather the other way round. It's the generally accepted use of the term "in-the-wild" that provides the criteria for inclusion in the WildList in the first place. The WildList is just a collection of samples from the larger class of all in-the-wild malware.

There's really no point in carrying this on any further as nothing new is going to emerge that hasn't already been said. What it comes down to is how you feel about this kind of marketing. These are just differences of personal opinion. It isn't a question of who's right or wrong, or my needing educating as you keep on trying to imply. I'm only expressing a similar view to some of the other posters in this thread so there's no need to keep personalising it.

I'm not making assumptions and I'm perfectly well aware of what ESET were saying and how the WildList used for VB100 testing is constructed. The fact that the advertisement didn't mislead me doesn't mean that it couldn't potentially mislead an inexperienced computer user though. It's fairly typical of how marketing departments operate and I'm just expressing a dislike of the unnecessary deliberate ambiguity and hyperbole that marketing departments frequently engage in.

The question of education could be relevant though for an inexperienced computer user encountering ESET for the first time through their advertising. If the user applied the literal meaning of the term "in-the-wild", without understanding the way the meaning has been implicitly redefined by ESET within the specific context in which it has been used in the advertisement, they could mistakenly think that ESET offers 100% detection of any malware they might encounter.

 

Actually, had you read the second link in my post, you would see Virus Bulletin's definition of "in-the-wild" as it pertains to their VB100 award. Scroll about 1/2 way down and read the left column.

I'm usually the one who objects to tightly parsed statements of any kind. Surprisingly (to me) this ad was not as bad as it was made out to be.

 

I did read it before replying but it wasn't a definition of "in-the-wild". What it actually said was "listed as 'In the Wild' by the WildList Organization" which isn't the same thing. Listed just means a collection of samples that are known to be in-the-wild, i.e. in current circulation and not simply found in a private zoo collection. No collection of samples can ever be definitive of "in-the-wild" (i.e. real world) malware when there is so much malware in circulation. The WildList is a subset of the class of all in-the-wild malware.

You are insisting on restricting the use of the term "in-the-wild" by extension whereas what I am talking about is intension - in other words the usual meaning of the term "in-the-wild", which is the qualifying criterion for inclusion in the WildList in the first place. A definition of a term by extension should include ALL members of the class (often impossible to list) derived from its definition by intension. If the extension of a term is implicitly redefined to include only a subset of the entire class derived from the usual meaning of the term as defined by intension, an inconsistency and ambiguity of meaning arises.

I agree the advertisement subtly shifts the meaning of the term "in-the-wild" from its usual meaning of "real world as opposed to laboratory conditions" to mean only the subset of in-the-wild malware included in the WildList. Like you, I don't have a major problem with it. It's potentially misleading but I've seen much worse. I'm just expressing a personal point of view within the context of a thread that was started to discuss this, nothing more.

I have already previously made all of these points and there is no point in repeatedly going over old ground. You are free to disagree but please respect the right of others to express their opinion without repeatedly misrepresenting what they are saying and being insulting. I've now said all I intend to say on this subject so let's just leave it there and both move on.