New Report, New Website and Greetings from PCSL

it depends on what do you think in mind.
If you think it is funded by vendors, then it is funded by vendors.
If you think it is not funded by vendors, then it is translated by myself


BTW, I will post a link when the translation is ready and I represent my team and also myself to thank you for your nice consideration.

 

Jeffrey, I'll start delving into your private affairs if my favorite product is not included on your next report. You are warned

 

The sad part is you guys can't seem to come up with anything better then thinking this has something to do with a product or seem to think lack of a product being tested. Read the post you might actually learn what I was talking about.

 

Again you try to attack me, You don't seem to get it I'm not attacking you. But you seem bent on that what it is. As for making a joke of ones self well I would worry more about your self then about me.

And Ill just leave it there.

 

Could it be just a coincidence, but I couldn't resist the joke

 

Sorry Mac, That was not directed at you but in general I do apologize it came off as such.

 

NP Fajo, I enjoy reading the whole thread

 

@ Fajo,

Dear Fajo, Don't you think that we all are here attacking Jeffery just for his good work...I Believe that you, me and others have no rights to ask any funding details..I guess you are not associated with this company nor you are a Tax Inspector here. So we have no rights to ask all this.

About other Comparatives agencies, they do have funding from their sponsors, whether they are AV Vendor or Vendors or others...So do you think that the results provided be these companies are also non-partial? What i strongly believe is that there is also some kind influence on those results also. Please note that its my imagination. But at some point of time i also believe that its really important to have some funds to conduct all these tests, as for independent agency's its impossible to do without funds...Now the point is about Transparency ...

What is the meaning of Transparency in this scenario? I guess the company who declares all his funding details, association, member details is truly transparent...Am I Right? What if any agency do not want to disclose all this details due to some of their policies?? So in this case you will not trust that company as because he do not want to disclose all this details?? So i would like to ask one thing from you, Do you have all funding details of AV-Comapritives or VB100? Do you have all the details from where they are getting 5 Lacs of Malware Samples? I guess you don't have each and every details...But still you are taking their results in +ve manner...

So why don't you take this result in positive manner? If you are really not interested then please be mum here...Else first provide all the details of AV-Comparatives and other agencies ...so that you can ask Jeffery also for this...This will no only helps us but also other ppl too.

 

Hi Jeffrey again. Just to make myself clear so to avoid misunderstandings.

1) I have a natural tendency to be suspicious and critical about AV tests. This came to me since the time that i was buying "reputable" paper magazines and i started noticing a certain pattern. So, don't take this too personally.

2) What i said, is that it is pretty much futile to concentrate any longer on what your funds are. Anyone (magazines included) can hide certain "unethical" funds. I don't say they or you do, but simply that us readers are in no position to control. Just like we are no position to control how they obtain their samples. In all this AV test business, you have to take their word for it, since there is no supervising 3rd party organization.

3) I believe you gave an answer to your income (personal and university money) and you don't have to submit your tax declaration to a forum to prove anything else.


4) To me, your test is as good as any other and i was actually happy to see you were pioneering dynamic tests since last year.

5) I think your test is a more faithful representation of "more likely to encounter" (aka prevalent) malware, which is why all vendors (almost) perform over 95%.

6) I 've followed your tests in the last year when i was using Twister and i pretty much agree on its detection ratio compared to others. In my own tests, Twister was somewhere around Dr Web's Cure it most of the time. So, i 've no reason to doubt your tests more than i do others. I do believe that in an all around scenario that includes very new and more rare samples, Twister's detection is considerably lower than 97%+ , but as i said, if one takes into account that your test is more oriented towards PREVALENT malware and also up to 1 month old, i think the result is plausible. I take Twister as example, because i 've been following its evolution in your tests in Twistee.org.

7) As a conclusion and in lack of evidence which would show that you 're not as indpendent as others, i wish you the best and thanks for providing us yet another source of comparison. If a product ranks very high in 1 test, it sounds good. If in 2 tests, sounds better. If in 3 tests, then it shouldn't be a hoax after all and it should be a good one. This is the best value i see in tests.

[noparse][/noparse] Personally, i am happy to see a Chinese test lab too, since the other tests we know are "western oriented", with whatever that may mean about geographical distribution of samples and since China has a large malware production, i find it interesting to see how products fare against samples that are more likely more common inside China.

 

As i said earlier, unless a tester willingly discloses that he has ties with a vendor, there is only "apparent transparency". Take computer magazines. How many do every month pubblish "AV tests"? Does any of them claim to be taking money from a vendor? Of course not! They claim to be making a "service to the reader" and their funding is... the price you pay to buy the magazine. Do you ALWAYS believe the results of these magazine tests? I don't! If they do have a secret sponsorship, they won't tell you, will they?

I can give you on paper all my transparent funding you want. This can't stop me from being bribed from a vendor under the table to include in the sample test for example more of his "rare" samples so that he can score better. The only thing that can stop me from that is my own ethics. Nothing else. And there's no way for you, the reader and potential customer, to know.


I REALLY can't understand how a business where there is no trully independent supervising authority, no common testing standards and quality control from outside, can be 100% certain to be transparent. What do people expect?!

Reminds me of doctors that take money (or "gifts") under the table from pharmaceutical companies to prescribe their drugs over a competitors drugs. Good luck in proving it! All doctors on paper are "transparent". You as a patient, can only HOPE, that your doctor has the ethics to put your health above the money he can get by making you a statistical case in his wallet. And unfortunately i am too cynical to believe that only doctors can be corrupted while in the heavenly business of AV industry, everyone is incorruptible...


"Transparency"... The only way to smell something fishy in these cases, in absense of admission of guilt, is to think whether the test results convince you or not (or if they appear plausible or not). Beyond that, "transparency" IMHO is just a nice word.

Back to Jeffrey, I am pretty sure that at least the vendors that partecipate in his test, know him and things about him enough to want to partecipate in his test by their own will. Which i think is also telling something. He isn't forcing them to partecipate, he takes their approval.

 

Happy new year to you as well! The year of the tiger starts at February 14th isn't it?

 

Once again, keep everything in perspective. The test is not claiming to be the be all and end all of tests, it's another test to help in your decision in choosing the right security product for you.

What I do know, is that if Avira, Vipre, Dr Web (who could be considered as critical of most tests) and others didn't trust Jeffrey in conducting the test, then they would have pulled out long ago. So my trust is in the other vendors/companies staying on board. When they stay on board, that shows trust.

The AV vendors have been around the 'AV traps/scene' longer than most of us, they can identify behaviour that is unethical. If they have faith in this test, so do I.

Maybe, just maybe if I see Jeffrey driving around in a Bugatti Veyron or dating Jennifer Hawkins I'll start to ask what's indeed really going on.

 

Agreed. It's not like Matousec where Emsisoft was telling him "please, dude, Mamutu isn't firewall, don't put it in the firewall test" and Matousec was simply ignoring them.

As a matter of fact, the number of partecipants is increasing compared to last year:

http://www.twistee.org/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=9

http://www.twistee.org/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=57

So unless something concrete comes up about his affiliations, his credibility for me is as good as anyone elses...

Of course, as with every other test, one may believe more or less the results. But that's another story.

Personally i would like to see a Russian testing lab too. The more , the merrier. Russia is important source of malware.

 

No need to be rude.

There is definitely a clash of cultures and a language barrier.

In post #88 you use the word 'floor'. The correct English word is 'post'.
In the same post you state that you do not want to reveal any information about the funding of your operation/the tests. If you just had said that in the very beginning instead of being evasive, we wouldn't have had this whole argument about it ! In most of the English speaking world, people are more direct.

You introduce PCSL on this forum, and most people here just had never heard of the organization. So asking some questions about PCSL along with some evidence is not so strange.

I also get the impression that this is a one man operation, or at least a small one. It would be difficult IMO to do a scientific test with a small team, although reducing the sample size makes it more manageable.

Again, I'm not trying to be rude or intrude in your personal affairs. You've stated that you won't disclose the funding of your operations and I'll leave it at that.

As I stated, there is definitely a clash of cultures and a language barrier. Making some adjustments would be a good idea.

As far as I´m concerned, enough said.

 

Which product? I will ping them

Yes definately and I and my team are busying take the Jan Test in order to finish it before spring festival as it is the most important days for chinese people.


To AvinashR Fuzzfas and Saraceno
I have to say thanks to your understanding and trust to me. I will take that as a gift and source of motivation to better my test.

 

Jeffery (番茄),

Nice to see you here.

Looking forward to the January results.

 

Jeffrey, the Methodology & Frequently Asked Questions document for PC Security Labs is dated November 6, 2008. Is there a more recent edition available (in English)?

Thank you.

 

Jeffrey, the absence of Symantec -- a major player in the industry -- from the testing performed by PC Security Labs is surprising. Can you comment upon the reasons for this omission?

Thank you.

 

Symantec is in the internal test list, when to release their result to public is their choice, we just test them as the other vendors in the public list.

For methodology, I am asking someone to translating and I will ping him for the process.

Thank you for your consideration.

 

Jeffrey, I’m not sure I understand the situation. Are you saying that Symantec agreed to participate in the PC Security Labs testing -- but, the company hasn’t yet agreed to publically release their performance statistics? Can you please elaborate?

 

If you want the details of AV-Corp funding read the website, as far as I can see they are very transparent about where they get there funds and how they are used. Especialy means they are a Non profit organization. Again if a company wants to remain anonymous about its practices and funding in business fine. But it wont add to the creditability of the company as a independent testing organization.

 

yes, they have been tested by us.

I am not sure about their reason for keeping the result for internal review only, but what I can tell you is that their score deserves their position as a big players in in industry. The same situation is McAfee and ESET. When they told me that they are willing to release the result, we put the result into the public reports together with the other vendors.

While, once they were added to the public list, we need not to check whether they are willing or not.

tell me if you are not clear and I will follow.

 

Why it won't add to the creditability ?? I think every company do have rights to keep some of their details private. And Secondly, are you 100% sure that each independent testing org. is displaying their all funding details publicly...I still afraid that they are not..

 

Hi Jeff,

Could you please provide me the internal report of Symantec, ESET and McAfee? I assure you that i won't let it out in public...

Hope you soon reply with +ve response.

 

Hi AvinashR,
For their report, I am sorry that I can not provide you a copy of that cause internal means that the report in visable only between PCSL and vendors. If I provide you a copy, I myself break the rule of that.

But, I have told you their score deserve their position in the industry and I also hope they can come out very soon as I know many of their consumers want to see their performance.

Anyway, if there is something that I can personally help, please feel free to let me know and I will be glad to help you.