Anti-malware.ru, treatment of active infections (July 2011)

Can you explain how is that a weak argument?
What is the job of a MARKETING REPRESENTATIVE OF A COMPANY? To Market the product? So how can you trust a Marketing Department to provide a valid review

I don't see any stronger argument against validity of the test when the tests themselves are performed by the company and especially by their marketing department. The only stronger argument I might see if the TDSS authors did the tests themselves and picked the worst performing products as #1 in order to provide misinformation.

And yes of course a review site will somtimes not rate their product as #1 in order not to "Seem bias" and to provide a sense of "objectivity" whereupon still mantaining credibility and alligence to the people WHO PAY THEIR BILLS.


edit: I am not saying that KAV is bad, I use it myself on one of my systems. What I am saying is that no one should base their purchasing decision on the tests performaned on that site.

 

@GrammatonCleric
As SLE said, there are people from various vendors (or rather, from their respective Russian divisions), like Trend Micro, Check Point, Symantec etc. who are involved with managing of anti-malware.ru.
It's not a one man army. And certainly not dependent on 3rd party funding.
Feel free not to believe what they state about themselves on the website.

 

Because you have no proof that it has anything to do with the test.

When the regional origin and/or the participating people are the only critic point, it's not strong and not far away from pure unfair flaming.

But if you have other and real critic points that really have to do with the test (you see the names, so you can find similar samples and test...) tell them us.

 

I always have belief in your tests. Because that matches with my experience with those products.

 

Strange that Check Point did so badly considering it uses Kaspersky AV. Anyone have a view on that?

 

Older engine - and generally engines and signatures used have not much to do with repair of infections. KAV/KIS have other mechanismns for that.

 

Is it the member SLE that have made the tests published on anti-malware.ru?

 

NO. Please no misunderstandings.

 

kaspersky - russia
dr. web - russia
avast - czech republic
Anti-malware.ru - russia, kaspersky affiliated web-set
'best av '- kaspersky
surprises - none

 

Disappointing to see that we get results based on country

SO, I am only trusting av-compartives and av-test

 

Nope, other vendors are involved with anti-malware.ru as well, read the website info.

True, from my personal tests, Kaspersky, DrWeb, Avast have very good removal. So truly no surprises there.

Funny you should say that, AV-test also gave Kaspersky top notch score for repair- 5.5, followed by Norton, F-secure and others who scored well, as they did in this test (well, not a brilliant score, but very good given the nature of the samples used).
Also, Agnitum said "Hi!" As they're also a Russian vendor, this "patriotic" test must've given it an excellent score.. ohwait. Or maybe they did that to throw us off, to seem less suspicious...

As already stated, stop these baseless accusations of rigging the results based on country and provide objective complaints on test methodology.

 

Do you think some product would do better if the same test would be run by a tester from some other country? For example, will Comodo Internet Security suddenly be capable of handling TDL4-rootkits if the test would move from Russia to USA?

 

I see..

 

I never said against anything ( provided you read my comment properly ) .I have right to chose what i find best. I trust av-test and av-c. I dont care whether kaspersky scores best at av-test .

Also , since you said about rational reasoning , so get this . I am not payibg much heed to a test which test 17 samples. If that is also not acceptable to you then either you are among the testers or you are so big fan of some product that you are blind to look at other aspects.

Had it been not so, then the whole point of this discussion would be useless

 

I never denied you the right to choose the tests you want to trust. The way you formed your reply:

...shows that because anti-malware.ru test is, as per your statement, based on country, you won't trust this test but "only AVC and AVtest".

17 samples is more than enough. Have you seen what the test is about?
-They have tested 17 Rootkits or malware with rootkit like behavior that are the most stealthiest, and most widespread.
-They have performed a test of active infections, rather than static scanning of samples.

Lets see how many "hidden malware" or malware with rootkit like behavior Av-test used in 2011 Q2: 18
So you trust a test which used 18 samples but don't trust a test with 17.
Regardless of that, no test can use a sufficient amount of samples, there are limits to resources and time one has to spend on a test; I can agree on that. But using "low amount of samples used" as a reason to doubt this test is ridiculous.

In any case, I'm neither a tester nor blind to other aspects because I'm a worshiper of a product or products as you stated, I simply don't see anything wrong with the methodology used.

 

no point in continuing the argument

Kaspersky is good, i never denied it. i am personally using it.

I want to put something more but there is no benefit.

 

Don't forget to mention other vendors which did good in the test...

 

As everytime, Russian products on the top.

 

nothing is at the top,. if it cant offer and deliver you 100 percent protection

 

Yeap hence I quit the argument.

I know my choice and my point of view and from those tests I know that they are totally biased.

I like KASPERSKY but as I said before I would not base my purchasing decision from tests on that site.

 

Those opinions are biased. Bring some proof or real arguments:
- Make Filesystem and registry snapshots.
- Install f.e. TDSS on a (virtual) system, then try some of the tested products and look if and how the infection is removed.
- Take new snapshots and compare.

 

It says he used to work for Kaspersky -- not that he currently works for Kaspersky.

"Ilya Shabanov

Founder and Managing Partner at Anti-Malware Test Lab
Russian Federation | Computer & Network Security

Current:
Founder and Managing Partner at Anti-Malware Test Lab

Past:
Head of Marketing Research at InfoWatch, Marketing Audit Manager at Kaspersky Lab, Senior Marketing Researcher at Kaspersky Lab "

http://www.linkedin.com/pub/dir/Ilya/Shabanov

 

I would think if any of the AV tested are bothered that tests are somehow biased can approach whoever tested direct. If they do we should hear about. Until then this thread has reached an impasse and as such ceases to be active.