Investigation in Progress by AV Comparatives

Glad AVC have informed us when they found out and glad they're collaborating and investigating with other organizations prior to announcing what AV so we can have a proper story.

We need to know what, why and when it happened rather than just an AV name so we can judge what we choose to believe and the consequences of the action.
Very different cases of if:
a) there was a new version or patch rolled out soon after AVC released test
b) identifying AVC's computers and amending cloud detection - shouldn't be too hard to do, especially for file detection tests if all malware and no clean files for FP test are in one directory or file naming conventions.

Also AVC should talk to a few lawyers prior to releasing any names - this can work out costly for all parties involved (except lawyers of-course).

 

You thought you known something, only because the AV companies wanted you to know. In reality, Kaspersky still gets top spot in almost every test. WHY didn't they quit? Why didn't all the AV vendors quit testing? Whining like a baby while still happily take the test, what a stupid bipolar.

Look at my signature. Your brain is too little to understand who is a right-click-scan test guy.

 

Of course ESET have missed samples like all other vendors, where did you read that ESET "didn't miss any examples thrown at it for years" ? And how can you even compare the VB100 award that you are talking about, to the situation that AV-C is investigating ?

This is the ESET VB100 history that you talk about right ?:
https://www.virusbtn.com/vb100/archive/vendor?id=14
It doesn't mean 100% detection of all samples thrown at ESET.

 

think I have mixed up testing labs,I am talking about years back when eset av was called nod32 and was their only product AND it didn't detect trojans etc,eset argued that it as only an AV,so a bit back
but I may be right especially in earlier tests!
http://www.eset.co.uk/Press-Centre/...ieves-Record-38th-Virus-Bulletin-VB-100-Award

 

I see. But in any case, at the bottom in this article you can read the the same info/criteria as seen in both my quotes. It doesn't mean 100% detection of ALL malware samples used in the test. It only means "100% of malware samples listed as 'In the Wild' by the WildList Organization" Afaik there are more malware samples used in the test than those on the "wildlist" yes?

 

I do realise that but was just saying,more or less,that if dates of tests are known,like the vb100 test which are set in stone,then vendors can manipulate their products to perform better at those times,it doesn't really matter about what samples or sample size is used,its the ability to "tune" things up to suit a known period,that is why earlier in this thread I suggested dates of all testing should be random and not known to any of the vendors involved

 

Kaspersky never said he wasn't one those that cheat. He only said that it was silly. Tests are just a marketing stunt for them, that's what some people here don't want to understand

 

And by the way...

It's not about paying a dozen good engineers, it's about finding them and then wasting their work on something meaningless, like passing tests.

 

Where's that article/post that gets posted from time to time about how worthless AV testing/scoring is?

 

No less relevant than articles posted about how worthless AV is in general.

 

Although I wonder if stockholders would agree that "passing tests is meaningless."

 

When Symantec pulled their antivirus from there I have to say I lost faith in Symantec. I was using it at the time.

 

Then you didn't understand why Symantec pulled from being tested at AV-C

http://securitywatch.pcmag.com/secu...declares-on-demand-antivirus-tests-misleading

https://community.norton.com/en/comment/3887213#comment-3887213

https://community.norton.com/node/7213

Edited to include a more relevant blog post.

 

I understood. Symantec claims to have more advanced features. Why still have on-demand in their product if it doesn't matter? I been using Qihoo Essentials and I find it better than Symantec. It's also free.

 

https://community.norton.com/en/comment/3887213#comment-3887213

I'm not going to take this thread any further off topic.

Thanks.

 

Testing bodies AV‐Comparatives, AV‐TEST and Virus Bulletin comment on allegations of inappropriate behavior

http://www.av-comparatives.org/weblog/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/VB-AVC-AVT-press-release.pdf

 

dirty qihoo again.

 

"As part of the investigation into Qihoo 360, counter-accusations were levelled by the company against two fellow Chinese security firms, Baidu and Tencent."

This one gave me quite a laugh. Chinese security firms - as scummy as they get even when their backs are against the wall.

 

@garrett76 and @J_L (posts #4 & #5, respectively), wow!!-- great call from the get-go, chaps.

Also, @FleischmannTV thanks for another excellent posting as usual.