http://www.securityweek.com/crowdstrike-vs-nss-labs-round-2-nss-hits-back Not sure if this was posted, if so please remove thanks
No, not redundant. It's a further explanation of Cloudstrike's position on the issue. As I understand the issue, Falcon's low score was due to its not fully completing all the NSS Lab's tests as was previously explained by NSS labs with wording by them to the effect that it very well could have scored higher if that happened. For what it is worth, Clouldstrike Falcon did detect the recent "atombombing" Dridex v4 incident and was the first VT sponsored vendor to do so; one month prior to the discovery of Dridex v4 by IBM.
I also found this Carbon Black vs Cloudstike analysis here: https://www.upguard.com/articles/carbon-black-vs-crowdstrike . Don't know how old the article is since I could find no date reference. Carbon Black was the top scoring product in the recent NSS lab analysis. Based on the article's conclusions, both products offer pretty much equal protection. Notable was both products have a few network protection issues. In any case these advanced AI endpoint solutions are only used is corp. environments since they cost in the tens of thousand dollars to deploy.
Nice find, will do some reading. But if I'm correct, you're saying that CrowdStrike was treated unfairly by NSS?
ClouldStrike's contention was that they only consented to private testing w/o public disclosure of test results based on their EULA statement. That is what the court disagreed with and dismissed the injunction request allowing for NSS Labs public disclosure. It is unclear from anything I have read on the NSS Lab's test of Cloudstrike why it didn't complete all the tests. Testing might have been suspended in process while the court proceedings were underway. Only NSS Labs knows for sure.
As I understand Cloudstrike somehow blocked their tests so NSS released results with only partial tests concluded.
