Dr Web and AV Comparatives

Considering they just couldn't get off STANDARD rating i think it was getting obvious why they don't want to participate anymore...

 

Sorry, RejZoR, but to whom do you point with your use of "they" . . . DrWeb or F-Prot? Just curious, for it could be either/both?

Regards,
Jim

 

What is the reason?

 

Fprot aswell won't be in the test?

So room for new ones I suppose

 

I am wondering whether ArcaVir would be included, this is one AV I really want to see tested.

 

Looks to me like there will be some type of shakedown in the testing industry not too far off...
I rarely rely on any single test anymore to make decisions... no longer can tell if they even make sense contextually to what I'm seeing out there...

Too much bickering at all levels to prove useful either.. who's right what's wrong and so on... Maybe they need to standardize. However viruses wont standardize, so it probably is a waste of time regardless, as it's impossible to provide an accurate picture of the true capabilities of most products. Or more importantly of its actual weaknesses.

 

May we know why?

ArcaVir sounds like a good candidate to replace F-Prot.

 

No, if you visit drweb forum you'll see there are a lot of arguments between CSJ and drweb officials, about this topic as well.

 

i never argue with you sergey, you just never agree.

i havnt posted specifically about the remove from the tests, although i have mentioned av-comparatives in the past, so has IBK2. lol

welcome back aboard, 6 on the post count now

its not always 'arguements', i do say many good things about the doctor on here sergey, if you kept posted, you would know

 

Industry needs testers very much. But what we see now? Are the AV vendors satisfied with the tests? I doubt, currently the industry's trying to make the most popular tests more "appropriate". We have to wait and see just a bit.

 

Does it make you feel more significant speaking as you know all and telling nothing?

You gave no reason or a clue neither for drweb quit that test, nor f-prot.

 

Personally I see enormous issues where vendors are able to influence decisions when testing... In my opinion this influence invalidates everything in the end as it forces the testers to produce "Vendor Compliant" results... makes no sense to me as to how this could prove effectively useful.

I clearly remember reading about an event a few years back between Toms Hardware & Intel where Tom's supply of Intel's CPU's was cut as punishment for writing some negative reviews effectively preventing him from being able to write several review on time allowing competitors an early release... My point here is that reviewers are being pressured by the developers for thousands of reasons, most probably legitimate while for many others the reasons are simply that it might hurt their bottom line...

Leverage is power and this type of power where it influences security decisions need to be impartial, and as such I don't believe reviews can be...

 

i am not sure if i am allowed to disclose any/all information.

 

care to elaborate?

you seem to be alerted, or keeping watch silently here on wilders Sergey.

 

Of course he does, but that doesnt mean this is the place to air it out either. Only if both parties agreed.

 

What about listing general reasons why an av would not want to be tested. Whether is was an ACTAUL requested reason or one that you can think of off the top of your head... Just curious...

Also, I'm not asking you to give any names...

 

Folks,

There's often confidentiality clauses on both ends of these agreements. I think is one of those cases where you're all just going to have to let it go. There's a change in the planned line-up and that's it.

Blue

 

Agree. Ikarus AV is several notches ahead of VBA.

It seems that AV-Comp's erstwhile standards for inclusion are *selectively applied.* Hmmm

 

There were several reasons we at F-Prot decided not to participate in the tests done by Andreas Clementi this year - one being the development of the tests vs. the development of our technology. We are moving more and more into "pro-active" heuristic detection (which is clear if you look at the shadowserver.org data), but those tests are moving in a very different direction, which right now is of little value to us. We expect his to change once certain new products from us become available, and we will probably ask to re-join at that time.

Sorry about how vague this is, but there are some things I prefer not to discuss in a public forum.

 

so, the guys at fprot are proud of their results over at shadowserver?

So are we taking them as valid' results, some people on here have their doubts,

Maybe because the so-called big scorers dont do so well

 

Personally as a non-expert, I find them the most convincing and accurate of all tests.

 

I did not say that. I said that the results there demonstrated our increased focus on heuristics - you can compare the results for the "old" and "new" F-Prot and just look at the number of samples picked up by Maximus or Eldorado (two of our heuristic "engines")

Whether the methodology at shadowserver is entirely valid or produces accurate results is an entirely different question.

 

Aaaah.... I love being right!

Here is the morning news: http://www.infoweek.ca/index.php?pa...flypage&product_id=1599&option=com_virtuemart

 

well all I can say is that Dr Web and F-Prot have made significant progress. I am really impressed with F-Prot 6. Only issue I had before was a BSOD with Vista.

 

Having taken part in the new AMTSO meeting, perhaps both Dr. Web and F-Prot feel that the next time they want to be tested "in public," so to speak, is only after some testing standardization has been firmly implemented. I, personally, think that's a good idea!