New Virusinfo statistics out

Hello folks,

Remember, it's only statistics, not a reliable test.
Still and all interesting BTW.

http://virusinfo.info/index.php?page=tests

Regards,
MJ

 

Yes, interesting. Microsoft still boosting detection

 

the results in the tests by this company never seem to make sense and seems to conflict with the tests of many other testers, in general.

 

This probably explains why.

"How we test

The testing of anti-viruses by VirusInfo is powered by free online scanner VirusTotal. Project participants, being practising specialists in the area of computer security, are uploading at VirusTotal the malicious software that they have received from infected machines, and then publish the results of scanning in a special topic on VirusInfo forum."

http://virusinfo.info/index.php?page=testseng

 

wow... that has got to be one of the worst methodologies ive ever read...

 

Yeah those home made Youtube tests are more representative than this.

 

Gosh, it must be authentic. After all, the chart is sooo pretty -- all those nice colors and everything -- so it must be accurate. Huh? Isn't it?

 

Well, even with all it's flaws, I still think the Avira ranking is quite fitting...

 

Looks like Comodo is on seriods
Yet another VT test ....

 

A rather flawed testing methodology.
Virustotal uses online scanners. They are NOT the same as the regular product. Less powerful, different.

 

The whole thing is completely unscientific if I'm interpreting it correctly.A bunch of 'specialists' upload random malware they've discovered on machines they've encountered and check to see the results on VT.There appears to be no standard baseline so there's no way of determining the configuration/status of these machines the 'specialists' are pulling the malware off and that's before you take into consideration the limitations of VT.

 

But who cares, it still makes for great reading.

I mean we hash and rehash this same subject out for years. We find reason to like some and reason to hate some. The list for both changes completely from member to member. Accuracy is in the eye of the beholder. So we can continue to write the same old stuff again and again, or just go with the flow and enjoy stuff like this for what it is meant to be.

 

It's fine that these tests can be discussed here and people will take them for what they are.The problem is when average users look at such rubbish and base their security strategy around it.

 

It's not a problem, because there's nothing you or I can do about it, and complaining about it here over and over again in various threads (I'm not talking about you in specific) won't fix it either.

If a user sees it and interprets it badly, well that's their problem. If they are smart enough to search online about it, they will probably hit one of the many threads here that explains how VT testing is flawed.

 

personally, I trust it as much as some of the others. My choice

 

True I guess there are tests out there which are even worse