New Detection Test - Dennis Labs

What ?? Please read point 3 of my earlier post.

 

So due to cost constraints if they do a lax job its OK ?? IMO, if their test was truly neutral and real-world and groundbreaking surely most vendors would have pitched in. Look at AV-C many vendors are ready to fit the bill for a neutral and thorough on-demand scan test.

So if you pay, we show you how its done. Else like in the case of Panda, we do how we wish to do. Even if it may have been inappropriate for the given product.
My logic is "If you are doing no wrong, then you have nothing to hide". So any independent & quality tester has no problem in "informing" at the least and display his intent.
All large, reputed testing institutions maintain communication channels with developers. In case of AVs, I cite the example of VB,AV-C,AV-Test etc. Its essential in maintaining transparency.

 

You’re right, of course. However, that motivation doesn’t imply that the conduct or the content of the test is any less credible -- right?

Apologies if my comment appeared too bold. My point, however, was that competitive anti-virus companies have the most “skin in the game” and if at least some of them (e.g., Prevx) appear to have little or no objection to the test “only” using 40 cases, then it seems to lessen the impact of that criticism.

Perhaps the most expeditious way forward is for a neutral organization (e.g., AV Comparatives) to adopt and improve upon the methodology used by Dennis Labs in their next malware detection test?

Yet, even if you agree that Symantec should have included other anti-virus vendors into the pre- and post-test discussions as a professional courtesy, the absence of those discussions does not alter the observed findings. Of course, if any competitive anti-virus vendor strongly objects to this test, they are completely capable of repeating and reporting their own iteration of the study.

Not sure I understand this comment -- the documentation of the methodology used by Dennis Labs is both excellent and public.

Pbust raised a valid question about the methodology of this test which has yet to be answered. I strongly encourage critiques of the test’s methods (but not of the sponsor company’s integrity in the absence of cause). I don’t doubt that there exist facets of this methodology that could be improved; however, that point applies to at least an equal degree to all other anti-virus comparatives of which I am aware.

What do you believe Symantec or Dennis Labs may be hiding?

 

Yes? And?If no vendor was to be informed of the tests and the methods to be used,as long as those methods were valid ones,then no vendor would be fore armed and all the products will have been tested on a level playing field,thought that was what you were arguing for?I can't think of any product test on anything that informs vendors/manufactureres before hand in the way that tests on anti malware products seem to

 

You keep saying this but it is somewhat invalid, Norton knew about the tests and fore armed. Why not other vendors ?

 

you have to read what I was replying to to understand what i was talking about in that post:-you'd make a very good politician,you only read/hear/see what suits you:-what a numpty!

 

Same could be said about you, But lets just stop there and Agree to disagree.

 

each time you've replied to what I have written you haven't read what was written or not read what it was in reply to,each time you grabbed on to one thing and tried to use that have another dig at Norton,which you seem to do at every opportunity,it seems to me that you have something against them or their products

 

Sigh.

Guess some people are just hopeless.

 

Are you suggesting that Symantec would have enhanced their efforts toward malware detection while they knew the test was running, so as to artificially inflate their performance and thereby gain an advantage over their competitors? To be frank, that assertion seems bizarre -- yet, to be clear, we’re both speculating on whether such an activity occurred (or didn’t).

 

Guess the possibility is there.

 

yep:-just glad you admit to it!

 

Couldnt agree more.

 

This thread SHALL NOT DIE!!!!!!!


Anyways something that would be interesting to see would be the other AV company's not just Symantec chipping in and having a corporation like AV corp do AV Analise. That way no company could contest the results and it would be something in Everyone's interest.


But something like this happening would be a rare thing as there would be alot of "Bickering" Among AV's on how it should be ran.

 

What about the testing guidelines posted by AMTSO?

http://amtso.org/documents.html

 

I came across a few statistics about Norton Internet Security 2010 that may be of interest to readers of this thread...

And, as of the time of this posting, Norton Internet Security 2010 has information about the reputation of 71.8 million files.

While such statistics don’t translate directly into an assessment of malware protection performance, they are suggestive. Out of curiosity, I wonder what the corresponding statistics might be from the other anti-virus vendors in the Dennis Labs report?

 

I agree -- it’s always preferable to remove the suspicion of “lack of fair play,” even if there is no evidence for the occurrence of the latter. I hope that the advancements that Symantec has made in the methodology used in the Dennis Labs' comparative are adapted and adopted by other organizations and vendors, to enhance the realism of all such test results.

 

yep, that was me but I swear on rogue sites it cant be beat. So I bought it. Lol

 

Fajo, I agree with you.

Comments such as "You didn't read what I wrote" or "You didn't listen to what I said" (& similar plaints) are tactics on a par with the old lawyer's strategem (when backed into a corner): "If you can't defend your client, defend instead the flag."

It is generally fruitless to debate a matter with an individual who ostensibly is more interested in having the last word than in discusiing valid pro's & con's of this so-called test.

As for me, the 3-point comments by vijayind are the most cogent that I have read, thus far, in this lengthy discussion.

 

Trjam... Normally I would not point this out but you buy them all. Then again no one could accuse you of bias as you pretty much support them all.

 

Thanks, Bellgamin. Although my initial post was concise and well-directed. Its defence put me on the same pedestal as old-lawyers

 

Readers of this thread may be interested in the comments of dschrader (a Symantec employee)...

I applaud Symantec’s call for more “real world testing” as opposed to “just scanning a directory full of malware.”

Note that Symantec is fearlessly encouraging and welcoming independent "real world" testing: it is indeed “time for the test labs to start testing real-world scenarios.” Apparently, the company is not at all concerned what the results will demonstrate. I wonder if the competitors of Symantec are equally unconcerned? Time will tell....

 

Heh, not only do you quote yourself, but you also contradict yourself as well. In any event at least you agree that Symantec/Norton does offer a quality product in regards to NAV/NIS 2010.

FWIW I've been boycotting their software since 2004. Now I run NIS2010 on my personal systems since they have drastically improved the application. Their support is also top notch.

 

For those who may be interested, please see An Experience-Led Approach Translates to Real Business Results for additional information about improvement in Symantec’s commitment to customer service over the last few years.

In particular, note that the company’s Net Promoter Score for Norton Internet Security increased by 50% -- i.e., the extent to which users recommend the product to others. In my opinion, that's a powerful indication of the satisfaction of actual users in the product.

 

Yes , it is . Thank you for pointing out this document .
Although it proves a public secret because we don't need any kind of document/survey or whatever to see the improvements and the fact on the forums . Also - have a look at their support forums - what makes impression to me is the fact that they have less virus problems threads than most other AV vendors . Additionally , I can't see recent threads about complains from Support. Fact is they have improved dramatically - let's see how long for.