AV-Comparatives's response to Panda

Read the AV-C's response to Panda titled "Rants of an immature AV company" dated on March 28th, 2008.

http://www.av-comparatives.org/weblog/?p=95

 

Not very surprising; immaturity from a crappy company.

 

Both Panda and AV-Comparatives are immature. Av-Comparatives aren't better with their response calling them immature, they just make themselves look bad. I thought AV-Comparatives would have done better, and they have lost some of my respect. Imo, it would be better to just not respond, and just leave it.

Panda have their opinion and AV-C another one. But please, leave this for yourself. Or atleast argue over mail, not in public. I do not protect neither Panda nor Av-Comparatives. I just think this is a waste of time.

 

it sounds like a wilders-forum argument/disagreement to me, not very professional on both sides.

you said this...
no i didnt
i have proof
fine, prove it
ok... i will

i think both crossed the line, maybe they dont like each other *lol*

 

Indeed, but given that AV-comparatives recently took flak from lots of people, I'm pretty sure frustration was building up for IBK and pent-up frustration is never good and has to be let out at someone.

But at least the best of language has been used without getting *too* personal, so its fine IMO. But to me the best course of action would have been to either keep quiet or make a smaller post instead of the essay-type post in the blog. And all his arguments are valid too, at least to an extent.

Oh, BTW, there are a few grammatical errors in the blog post which I recommend be corrected (so it would look more professional).

 

@Jadda, CSJ & Firecat -- Well said. I agree.

By the way, the prices charged (IF true) are a tad startling, but I see nothing wrong with posting them. I have ceased to be upset by the fact that most people have to earn a living.

 

They need "Anonymous..."

 

Sometimes you have to

Again, sometimes "silence gives consent".

 

Panda criticizes AV-C's tests, and AV-C objects. However, AV-C itself is critical of tests by others...

A-- For instance, see this forum post whereat AV-C criticizes Virus.gk's tests. (Virus.gk's rejoinder is HERE).

Whether AV-C's criticisms of Virus.gk's tests are accurate or not is beside the point inasmuch as AV-C's response to Panda's blog inferred that any criticism of a test organization may be based on ulterior motives. Wouldn't the same be true of one test organization criticizing a competitor's testing efforts?

B-- For another instance (1) goto AV-C's website, then (2) click "Comparatives" in the left-side column, then (3) on the resultant new page, scroll down to the line titled "Anti-Virus Testing Websites" and click on "Report(PDF)"

Goto page 9 of AV-C's report (titled "3. Non-trustworthy tests and/or flawed tests") and you will read AV-C's negative comments concerning various test sites & categories of testers. Again, whether or not those criticisms are correct is beside the point. The point is -- *perhaps* AV-C should not reprove criticisms of its own tests (by Panda & other vendors) when AV-C itself is willing to criticize tests done by other testing organizations and individuals.

I think AV-C should have ignored Panda's blog. AV-C has a well-earned reputation for HIGH integrity among many folks (myself included). Against AV-C's long-standing good reputation, Panda's little blog doesn't amount to a pool of warm spit. An anti-malware tester might be better advised to stick to testing anti-malware, & avoid public participation in games of disputational ping-pong.

 

I don't believe "integrity" is the issue here or at least not the most important one. Why did you bring that up? I agreed with all you said until you got to the last paragraph and I agree with the first sentence in your last paragraph also.

I suppose Authentium's blog is just "warm spit" also? http://blogs.authentium.com/virusblog/?p=229

I do agree though that dirty laundry should not be washed in public but that applies long before these blog comments. All that is accomplished is that the user no longer holds any of the parties in as high esteem as before and the user becomes more cynical. At least if blogs must be made a restrained one like Authentium's is better.

 

The aim of some parties involved seems to be to make **** stick to their intended target. Regardless of whatever the facts were, it looks like mission accomplished to me.

 

I think that you're right.

Couldn't agree more.
Something smells really bad

 

After speaking with Mike from Frisk I decided to remove my weblog post because I agree with him that it doesn't help anybody to fight a public "dog fight". Since I respect his knowledge and contacts in the business it's the best that this weblog post has gone. I want to apologize for the confusion and trouble, it was a not well thought and too fast written weblog post. We will try to solve such disputes with the involved parties internally.

 

All right! Great. You guys get together in PRIVATE...yell at each other a bit if you must, then sit down like the mature folks you are and work out your differences so that we the users can truly benefit from tests that are good and solid and that the AV companies support.

What ever happened to the group that was supposed to be started of vendors and testers to make tests better? Wasn't that partly Mike's idea? Where is that currently? Anything happening with it?

 

Next meeting is next month in Amsterdam.
See here: http://www.amtso.org/index.php?opti...d=15:hoofddorp&catid=10:nextmeeting&Itemid=16

Mike

 

Without a doubt, the right thing to do.

 

I was talking to Mike this morning too and I agree. Definitely the best thing to do has been to remove the post.

If there is anything to talk about, they both should explain to each other in a private way.

Any further comment is useless.

 

Some good comments at the following:
http://www.amtso.org/

 

After reconsideration and doubts from several respected people and vendors I withdraw herewith the partnership idea with Sergey Ilyin in order to keep our neutral position. I was instead thinking of getting some help from professional industry experts, such as Michael St. Neitzel (FRISK), etc.
As it was stated in the press release, we wanted to start the collaboration by the end of 2008. Not much will change, except that AV-Comparatives will not use third party results in its reports.

 

Are you sure?

 

Its going to be a mess with press releases and all already made, not good.....and all this caused due to an overzealous response from certain vendors....

 

I think their opinion was to be expected,

No reason given.

With Panda and others, they sail in the same boat.

 

The reason from AV-comparatives has been obvious for a while now (in the past the main page used to say that clones of other AVs have largely the same detection and hence do not need testing). Authentium uses the same engine as Frisk, with largely similar (if not worse) detection rates. There was and is no reason to test Authentium AV.

 

Thanks Firecat.

I meant, Authentium doesn't tell the reason on its blog.

 

Authentium's AV achieves consistently poor detection on any & all tests whereby it is tested. Concerning Authentium's remarks about AV-C, it seems that they are selective as to WHICH tests their AV will do poorly on.

Not warm spit. Tepid.