PCSL Total Protection Test July 2010 Report

Discussion in 'other anti-virus software' started by pcslinfo, Aug 23, 2010.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. progress

    progress Guest

    I second that :thumb: :thumb:
     
  2. PJC

    PJC Very Frequent Poster

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Posts:
    2,959
    Location:
    Internet
    So, you believe that AVG suddenly became so Strong that it now exceeds G DATA o_O

    Meanwhile, Avira AntiVir suddenly became so Weak that Rising went ahead of it o_O

    The September AV-Comparatives.org 'On-Demand' Test will very soon clear the situation
    and show us whether the PCSL Total Protection Tests are to be trusted...
     

    Attached Files:

  3. mike21

    mike21 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2006
    Posts:
    416
    No way.
     
  4. Nevis

    Nevis Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2010
    Posts:
    812
    Location:
    255.255.255.255
    not talking abt resources .. its just that their test results were always so poor that it was tough to imagine it competing in main road like today
    well, i completely agree with what u say :) , i m not saying that these results perfectly reflect the av strength but note that its 3 month scenario detection .
    .. look my above reply for what i meant


    also looking forward to av-comparatives report
     
  5. sergey ulasen

    sergey ulasen AV Expert

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2009
    Posts:
    50
    Hello pcslinfo!

    Thank you for your test!

    I have some questions:

    1) In your methodology you write: "Based on the monitoring data collected by
    our own crawlers and by security vendors’ telemetry systems, we divided 2000
    prevalent malware samples according to their level of prevalence into the following four groups:
    Category A – Very High Prevalence
    Category B – High Prevalence
    Category C – Medium Prevalence
    Category D – Low Prevalence."


    Which parameters do you take into consideration when you rank files between four groups ? I don't see this information in the document and this information is very important for the chosen method.

    2) In your methodology you write: "By using the analytical hierarchy process
    method, we determine the weighting of any category, so that the full score
    a security product can achieve from detecting malware in each category will be as follows:
    Category A: 52.6
    Category B: 25.3
    Category C: 16.3
    Category D: 5.8."


    How do you calculate these coefficients ?
     
  6. PJC

    PJC Very Frequent Poster

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Posts:
    2,959
    Location:
    Internet
    PCSL Total Protection Test (July 2010 Report)

    Compare the above Results with
    the Results of the last AV-Comparatives Test .

    Needless to write more...
     
  7. progress

    progress Guest

    It all depends on the malware samples! :) It's so easy ...
     
  8. PJC

    PJC Very Frequent Poster

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Posts:
    2,959
    Location:
    Internet
    The 900000 Sample of AV-Comparatives looks, by far, more Representative than the 2000 sample of PCSL.
    BTW, it does Not only Depends on the Malware Sample.
    It depends on the Testing Methodology, too.
    See the #55 Post.
     
    Last edited: Sep 24, 2010
  9. progress

    progress Guest

    I agree, I don't really like the categories :doubt:
     
  10. qakbot

    qakbot Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2010
    Posts:
    380
    If the product simply prompts the user for a decision, it sounds like the test counts this as a valid detection, which I think is BS.

    If this is true, then just based on this alone, I think this test is bogus.
     
  11. qakbot

    qakbot Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2010
    Posts:
    380

    Both great questions.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.