does anybody know this alleged expert

I am aware of this guy, and whilst his opinion may not conform to strict rigorous test conditions they are his views, his tests are pretty thorough and his interest in the subject is to be to be applauded.

At Wilders we get many people with many different opinions, and opinions from many different technical backgrounds, whatever this guys opinion I welcome his tests as, whilst it may not be a strictly conducted test, it is a 'real world' situation, and these can be ignored at one's peril.

But you are right, he's not afraid to speak his mind quite refreshing I feel.


Kev

 

I do not think it is a very reputable "AV test."

To me his results seem much more based on his personal opinion. In fact, it does not even differ much from the opinions i have heard from others at this forum about particular AVs. Hardly any of his conclusions seem to reflect the tests that he says he put these AV's through. Testing method and samples are also highly questionable. I believe all he says about his samples is that he has a "large malware database at his disposal." I am not saying his test is worthless. In fact it might be a good start for many in learning a little something about each AV. But it is nowhere as serious as other like VirusBulletin or AV-Comparatives.

 

As regarding avast!,this review lacks lots of informations. Some are even not perfectly true. Review itself is indeed positive,but registration is really not a problem to obtain serial which works for 14 months then,and predefined commands on virus detection can be set only in Pro Edition.
In Home Edition you are limited to Silent Mode only (Move to Chest).

This is just for avast!,and i belive some of you will find other things regarding your AV and things that are not the way how the author reviewed them.

 

Rerun my friend, my point stands, of course it isn't a scientific test, the author doesn't expect you to take it as such.

For me I never tire of reading tests into security products, it provides a good insight into the everyday problems we all may find.

Basically what I say is, take all you read with a pinch of salt unless proved otherwise.


Kev

 

Good read though.

Those are his opinions and you should read from several others before you make up your mind.

One review is not enough to be frank or trusted.

 

Very true words Chew, and after 9 years in the game I am sure to be careful

 

He does have the right to express his opinion on a subject, But I also have the right to an opinion. And my opinion is that he is very ill informed on this subject.

 

well hes almost right perty close but his data base of nastys must be perty small not as big as he says cause if he had close to whats really out there he would just look like this hang it up unplig the pc and read a book lol

yup if all you had an ideal of whats really out there you just wouldnt bother

for every security expert theres thousands of script kidys

5 year olds are now loging on so by the time they get to jr high they will have writen new nastys ulike anything you seen

now pounder at that

blaze go lay in corner rocking back in forth in the dark with thumb in his mouth make the bad people go alway

 

My point stands as well
But I do respect your reasoning. Like I mentioned I do not feel it is an entirely useless test. But if one were to say they tested these AV's against their "large database of malware" they should at least back it up with some results from their own test. All I see are comments like these...

which only lead to outbursts like these...

Not to mention the comment on NOD32 which wasnt supported either.

Not only this but a lot of what is said is contradictory. Mcafee and Norton are said to use too much resources... but the response for KAV is

And while the results for AVG and EZ did not seem up to par, it seems like the results of NAV were not either; despite 94%-95% detection and removal (by the standards set in this test) Saying that...

94%-95% seems considerably higher than what AVG and EZ were said to able to detect. And nowhere else is it mentioned the percentages of other AVs (or "NAV's largest competitors") which could detect more malware in his database. Though one can assume in the end.

Little or no comments on KAV, PC-Cillin, and Antivir are nade (despite the relatively favorable reviews which also seem unsupported and without basis).

It is a VERY uneven mix of experience and what one thinks is legitimate "AV testing".

But I do agree with this sentence Tinribs which you made

 

Well, every one is entitled to an opinion as TinRibs and bigc pointed out.

In one line he states KAV "is another top notch antivirus. It’s user friendly and very effective."

But futher down when giving his "Top 10" so to speak: "Which ones are the best? PC-cillin, AVP, Norman and McAfee rated the highest and are pretty much tied, followed by (in order of effectiveness) Avast, AntiVir, Norton. Stay away from EZ Antivirus and Grisoft AVG. " ~ no KAV, lol...

No NOD test...?? Regardless of what he thinks re NOD, no one in their right mind will leave out a recognised AV like NOD in a test scenario. Just not cricket, old sport.

How on earth can he come to a conclusion like this without even testing the darn thing?

This quote re Anti-Trojans:

Well, what can I say to that. 3 of those listed have a LONG LONG way to go... man... he's obviously not done his homework.

I am with bigc on this 'test'. Totally inconsistent, no data given on testing conditions, no testbed of virri/trojans/exploits given, what was the PC state for each test ~ reimage, backup, restore, what?

Now, that's just my opinion of course.

Don't get me wrong, I had a good read and some of the statements are correct in general relating to virus etc. I also do not dispute "his" findings, it was his test and his PC, and we were not there, but it in no way can be deemed as a fully conclusive and trusting test for the rest of us.

You have to make up your own mind.

Cheers, TAS

 

I think his problem with NOD is the same problem a lot of people in my country (USA) have. A lot of great software from down under just does not get the kind of exposure it should. This is why you read so little and hear so little about DiamondCS products in America. This is one area where the Internet has not broken down barriers. The US media focuses on US products - and to a lesser extent European software - to the exclusion of almost everything else. And it's a damn shame. This reviewer we are all talking about thinks that if it doesn't get exposure and isn't "well-known" then it's not worth his time. It's stupid - but that's how it is. I have noticed NOD advertising in some US publications, and needless to say along with ad $$$ will come coverage. There are so many great products (even in the states) that simply don't get coverage because they lack marketing. Now and then, something fills a niche or is so compelling that it can't be ignored, but for the most part marketing dollars is all-important. It's wrong, it shouldn't matter, but that's the unfortunate truth.

John
Luv2BSecure

.

 

Yes, very good point John.
A product's exposure is all about being seen in mags, TV, etc. and on websites.

Anyone says "running shoes" brandname, 90% would immediately think Nike.

That's why Symantec has a headstart on the rest, branding in the field so to speak.

Cheers, TAS

 

I am just a security newbie, so I come with that perspective, but I have to say that I would be unconvinced by the test writer's experiment. His conclusions might well be justified, but the methods by which he arrives at them are a mixture of first hand experience, hearsay and conjecture.

Tinribs, saying that your test is not a scientific test should not be allowed as a mitigating circumstance. Even as a security newbie, I am intelligent enough to know that an unrepresentative sample size, poor documentation of procedure, and admission of clear bias constitutes poor argumentation, let alone bad science.

To boot, I am not even a NOD32 fan AT ALL, but I am a fan of fairness and due process, and I don't think either was given its due here.

Luv2BSecure, I agree. That's part of the deal that comes with the territory of living in a media saturated culture: it's not about the truth, it's about the advertising dollars that buy the soundbite.