AV-Comparatives - Anonymous Test of four Chinese Vendors

I find this quite hmm... I guess interesting that these vendors choose to be anonymous.

Go here:http://www.av-comparatives.org/ And then browse to the Singel Product Reviews page.
And in the PDF one can see Missed samples, but also how many FP's each vendor got.

Vendor 1 did OK, but Vendor 4 did not so good.

 

Wow anonymous?
Hahaha i guess they are testing their engines

 

I would not touch any of them.

 

The least percentage of missed samples is 16.9% So the best detection rate is 83.1% which is not that great.

 

+1

Ziaul

 

+ 100

 

Let's see if I can guess one:

Chinese AV + Not in August Comparative = Kingsoft?

 

I guess that Rising must be one of them also. And maybe Jiangmin as well

 

Unbelievable !

AV-Comparatives has lost it completely.
AV's today, are using cloud as an important part of their solution,
which is needed because of the amount of malware out there.
AV-C decided not to include this in his tests, and using malware several months old, that doesn't give you a good indication on how a AV in "real life" performs!

That is bad, but now it even get worse.
So 4 AV's are tested, but he doesn't want to say which ones.
That is good for the general public ?!?, they really need that info.
It is like: i have tested 4 European cars, but i don't tell you which ones,
and these are the results


- The fact that antivirus brands need to pay him, for these tests isn't good to start with. It gives all kinds of complications like:
- i don't want to be tested the way suggested, so i don't pay, that way i get no bad press
- i will pay, but i like to choose with which settings, but you are allowed to report that
- How good is a product that is never tested , let's speculate etc. etc.

And now, i like to test 4 Chinese brands, but they will not pay .... hmmm,
And if they don't pay , ... i don't mention their names, so they don't get free press..!!

Terrible !

It is time Anti Virus companies decide HOW tests should be done.
And when tests can get their AMTSO (www.amtso.org) certificate.

If not, tests will be getting worse and worse, although more unclear and unusable results as these can not be expected,

 

- it was tested with cloud. (inform yourself before making statements)
- it was commissioned by chinese companies (not AV company); reasons why no names are included can be read in the report (read before making statements)

 

Poster's mouse is moving vigorously, but CPU is not yet active, I think.

 

You're priceless, bellgamin...if you don't mind me saying so ...Love to read your posts

 

Ehm...It sounds like you didn't read the PDF at all

 

Now that i read why was the reason they were anonymous i totally understand!!
To be honest i never even read what was the reason behind it but after having some spare time i decided to do so

 

Of course, but if we take this fact, than the test published has not really many informations for public.

 

And to be honest that is true also, oh well i think these tests were more oriented for the people that financed it (Chinese IT Company) i guess they just released it as a teaser for us

 

IBK wrote

1 - i referred to previous tests here, see our previous discussion on this
2 - exactly, the one who pays , or not, can decide if the test results are published.

But let's be honest,
What is the use of publishing test results without mentioning WHAT you have tested?
It will only lead to speculation and a to wrong conclusions.

See the previous posts in this thread..

And by the way, in your document, i read "as an independent non-profit organization"
how independent is this organization, if it lives of the payments of vendors that
pay to have their software tested ? Or test what the client want to have tested as in this case?

And what about the malware tested, again most of the malware found
can be considered as old.

Another thing is why are the number of False Positives always in absolute numbers,
but the missed samples in percentage?

In your Graphs 150 False Positives seems the same as 32000 missed samples (16 % of 200000)

btw i don't mind if you say i didn't read your document

 

Actually reading up on AV-C, would learn you that "AV-Comparatives is an Austrian Non-Profit-Organization" which closely cooperates with the University of Innsbruck.
Reading up a bit further on other tests (or a simple Google search) f.i. shows; "The whole product dynamic test is a collaboration between AV-Comparatives and the University of Innsbruck, with financial backing from the Austrian government."
AV-C doesn't just rely only on money from participating vendors, so it doesn't live of the payments of vendors.

Again, if you would have read a bit about their tests, you would learn that the sample set for FP's is a different one than the malware sample set.
The FP graph clearly shows a maximum of 400, doesn't it. Of course, you're free to interpret 400 as 200000.
Why not inform yourself, it can prevent unnecessary speculation and wrong conclusions. And semi-troll like posts.

 

Yes, i have read that too,
of course it is easy to say that i draw the wrong conclusions
based on nothing.
But as a matter of fact i have a business relationship with
several antivirus brands.
And that is were i get additional info.

But AV-C can make this very clear by answering a simple
question:

Do antivirus brands have to pay or not to have their
products tested, or is the university the only one funding this?

Guys, as you can see on the account creation date i
have been around here for quite a while.
And i know what AV's have to pay.

Ok, you might call this trolling, but i think it is time
that the general public hears the other side of this.

So, please respect someone who has another opinion,
you might disagree, but i am well informed on this.
- please calculate the absolute number of misses and compare those with the absolute number of FP and see for yourself.

With this statement i will end my part if this thread .

 

Why you do not read the PDF on the website (from 200 where is says that there is a fee for provided services and licensing of logo usage?
If you know so much, why you do not also say that our fees are for the provided services the cheapest ones?
Are you aware that everyone, also all testing organizations (also the ones which do not do it for profits), have expenses that need to be covered in order to deliver services?
Can you state with which vendor you have a relation?

btw, there is only one type of test a AV-C which is done without cloud, and that is done by design/scope. All other tests are done with cloud. Also the statement about several months old malware is wrong. I think you are misinformed or do not want to inform yourself by reading known information.

 

Decide HOW and Pay FOR or Pay... ACCORDINGLY?
The issue is to have 'Fully-Independent from the AV Vendors'AV-Testing Organizations...

Do the AV-Testing sites (Dennis Technology Lab, ICSA Labs, and PC Security Labs)
which are AMTSO members ,
have such an AMTSO AV-Testingcertificate? Just asking/wondering...

 

such a certificate does not exist. please read the FAQ.
P.S. VirusBulletin and CheckVir are also current members.

[sorry for the off-topic]

 

More than "semi" I think.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Test organizations need an income stream. Some of us feel objectivity is questionable when the income stream is obtained from the companies who own the programs being tested. But -- is there a VIABLE alternative source of income for test organizations? I for one cannot think of one (the stumbling point is that word, "viable").

 

I know Andreas, and my Question was deliberate...
I am aware of VB, too.
I mentioned the specific sites on purpose...
Just check past Threads with their Tests...