AV-TEST Advanced Threat Prevention Test Results

Now that that the RSA conference is over, some details are emerging, here are the latest I could find on "that" NSS Labs test:

Ref.: http://www.csoonline.com/article/3168833/security/salted-hash-rsa-conference-2017-live-blog.html
​

Appears Cylance did no where near as well as they thought they would. Explains why few details of the results are available on their blog.

-EDIT- Cylance came in at 3rd place. Tested products ranking here: http://www.networkworld.com/article...y-products-flagged-2-with-caution-rating.html

Also noteworthy as I previously mentioned here: https://www.wilderssecurity.com/thr...ntion-test-results.392018/page-2#post-2652762 , NSS Labs altered their AEP methodology for this testing without any clear explanation as to why.

 

AMTSO comments on recent testing issues

http://www.amtso.org/latest-press-release/

 

Latest example of an AV Lab test that appears to have used 100% "synthetic" malware here:
https://avlab.pl/sites/default/files/68files/protection_epayment.pdf

I think at this point, it is safe to state that the situation is totally and completely out of control.

 

I haven't read everything, but what's your take on it, did CrowdStrike have a point? And yes, Cylance actually did quite good with a third place.

Yes I know about this, but it isn't a true consumer version if it's managed by some company.

Yes of course, but the thing is, they claim to offer protection without the need for the cloud and signatures. But I'm not sure about the rest of the architecture, perhaps the endpoint software can only provide malware detection via the server component.

 

Eset's official response to NSS Lab test of "Next Gen" products released at the recent RSA conference: https://www.eset.com/us/about/newsr...nts-experience-with-nss-labs-and-aep-10-test/

 

This pretty much sums it up, and why i have a complete disregard for these testing organizations.

 

So do i, to every one of them, all are shady to me. i just laugh at their methodologies.