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

Discussion in 'other anti-virus software' started by 3x0gR13N, Jul 29, 2011.

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

    GrammatonCleric Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2009
    Posts:
    372
    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 reviewo_O

    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.
     
    Last edited: Jul 30, 2011
  2. 3x0gR13N

    3x0gR13N Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 1, 2008
    Posts:
    798
    @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.
     
  3. SLE

    SLE Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2011
    Posts:
    361
    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. ;)
     
  4. sg09

    sg09 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2009
    Posts:
    2,805
    Location:
    Kolkata, India
    :thumb: :thumb:
    I always have belief in your tests. Because that matches with my experience with those products.
     
  5. pjb024

    pjb024 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2005
    Posts:
    351
    Location:
    Leeds, UK
    Strange that Check Point did so badly considering it uses Kaspersky AV. Anyone have a view on that?
     
  6. SLE

    SLE Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2011
    Posts:
    361
    Older engine - and generally engines and signatures used have not much to do with repair of infections. KAV/KIS have other mechanismns for that.
     
  7. SweX

    SweX Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2007
    Posts:
    6,429
    Is it the member SLE that have made the tests published on anti-malware.ru? o_O
     
  8. SLE

    SLE Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2011
    Posts:
    361
    NO. Please no misunderstandings.:)
     
  9. Syobon

    Syobon Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2009
    Posts:
    469
    kaspersky - russia
    dr. web - russia
    avast - czech republic
    Anti-malware.ru - russia, kaspersky affiliated web-set
    'best av '- kaspersky
    surprises - none
     
  10. Nevis

    Nevis Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2010
    Posts:
    812
    Location:
    255.255.255.255
    Disappointing to see that we get results based on country :(

    SO, I am only trusting av-compartives and av-test
     
  11. 3x0gR13N

    3x0gR13N Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 1, 2008
    Posts:
    798
    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... :argh:

    As already stated, stop these baseless accusations of rigging the results based on country and provide objective complaints on test methodology.
     
    Last edited: Jul 31, 2011
  12. risl

    risl Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2006
    Posts:
    581
    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?
     
  13. sg09

    sg09 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2009
    Posts:
    2,805
    Location:
    Kolkata, India
    :p I see..:cool:
     
  14. Nevis

    Nevis Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2010
    Posts:
    812
    Location:
    255.255.255.255
    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
     
  15. 3x0gR13N

    3x0gR13N Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 1, 2008
    Posts:
    798
    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.
     
    Last edited: Aug 1, 2011
  16. Nevis

    Nevis Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2010
    Posts:
    812
    Location:
    255.255.255.255
    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.
     
  17. 3x0gR13N

    3x0gR13N Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 1, 2008
    Posts:
    798
    Don't forget to mention other vendors which did good in the test... :)
     
  18. MrGSM

    MrGSM Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2008
    Posts:
    147
    Location:
    Morocco
    As everytime, Russian products on the top.
     
  19. trjam

    trjam Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2006
    Posts:
    9,102
    Location:
    North Carolina USA
    nothing is at the top,. if it cant offer and deliver you 100 percent protection
     
  20. GrammatonCleric

    GrammatonCleric Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2009
    Posts:
    372
    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.
     
  21. SLE

    SLE Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2011
    Posts:
    361
    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.
     
  22. hawki

    hawki Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2008
    Posts:
    4,636
    Location:
    DC Metro Area
    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
     
  23. Cudni

    Cudni Global Moderator

    Joined:
    May 24, 2009
    Posts:
    6,955
    Location:
    Somethingshire
    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.
     
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.