blog with multiple antivirus video reviews and tests

Discussion in 'other anti-virus software' started by simisg, Jan 15, 2010.

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

    simisg Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2008
    Posts:
    410
    Location:
    Greece
  2. PC__Gamer

    PC__Gamer Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2009
    Posts:
    526
  3. simisg

    simisg Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2008
    Posts:
    410
    Location:
    Greece
    from France......
     
  4. Fajo

    Fajo Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2008
    Posts:
    1,812
    Do you want fry's with that. :eek:
     
  5. Mack Jones

    Mack Jones Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2003
    Posts:
    174
    Location:
    France
    This page is ~Phrase removed~ , complete nonsense at all.
    He's just trying to test fresh active malwares (always different samples for each test :cautious: ) and conclude how the engine performs with only very few infected links...

    Biaised methodology gives biaised results.
    Simply useless.

    :ouch:


    Hell is full of good meanings and wishings
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 15, 2010
  6. Dark_Hanzo

    Dark_Hanzo Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2009
    Posts:
    172
    Location:
    Canada
    Most of the av reviewers, who post their reviews on youtube (e.g. Matt and Languy99), have similar methodologies.
     
  7. progress

    progress Guest

    I think most of the wilders members don't speak French :(
     
  8. bellgamin

    bellgamin Very Frequent Poster

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2002
    Posts:
    5,648
    Location:
    Hawaii
    Of equal or greater amateurish ineptitude?
     
  9. Dark_Hanzo

    Dark_Hanzo Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2009
    Posts:
    172
    Location:
    Canada
    I had to look up the dictionary for the word "ineptitude" :D. Anyway, sure those video reviews are made in an unprofessional way, but they are fun to watch.
     
  10. PC__Gamer

    PC__Gamer Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2009
    Posts:
    526
    sure - with mute :)

    in all honesty, i find his opinions laughable.

    best of the paid-for:

    Bullguard?
    Nuwavesoft?

    worst of the paid-for:

    avast
    Drweb
    Nod32
    mcafee
    panda 2010
    norton 2010


    seriously, he must be having a laugh....
     
    Last edited: Jan 15, 2010
  11. smage

    smage Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2008
    Posts:
    377
    Hi
    Please spend some time watching the reviews before drawing conclusions.

    The Mcafee review is GREAT!
    This shows that tthe on-demand tests of AV-C are getting more and more meaningless.
     
  12. Fajo

    Fajo Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2008
    Posts:
    1,812
    Or it simply shows lack of ether how to use the product or how to test it. Also Dynamic tests done by AV-C show a completely different view and are alot more reliable then this garbage. But hey that's just my view.
     
  13. smage

    smage Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2008
    Posts:
    377

    No but how are the reviews flawed?

    I agree that they cannot be used to to compare products but if you take them individually, a product which is not able to protect a system against 15 urls cannot be considered as a good product.

    Moreover he says that he is testing the proactive side of antivirus and thus he uses new samples of which many are rogues, that is why many AVs are not doing well.

    There is something that amazes me in AV-C dynamic tests, I find that the AVs are doing too well in these tests. If you go to malware domain list and try out 10 new urls so many will fail to block the malware, so how are they doing so well in AV-C?
    Also in his tests he used some 10-20 urls and some antivirus got terminated by malware, so how did AV-C test these antivirus with 100 samples?
    Besides in his tests, he tends to be using default settings for the products, that's why AVs like Avira did not perform as expected.

    Some may be surprised that NIS 2010 did so badly but this is because it was NIS 2010 Beta, so I want to know why are you people dismissing the tests so quickly?
     
    Last edited: Jan 16, 2010
  14. progress

    progress Guest

    I agree, on-demand tests are obsolete ... :rolleyes:
     
  15. Fajo

    Fajo Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2008
    Posts:
    1,812

    Sorry but throwing 15 random url's from wannabemalwaretester(dot)com is proving nothing about a product. People that test products this way and think they are testing Zero day malware are only kidding them self's.

    As for AV-Corp I do not pretend to know what virus they test against in dynamic testing. That is more left to IBK if he wish's to post, But trying to compare this slop to a real Anti-Virus testing co-op that is one non-profit and has a reputation in the industry shows complete lack understanding of how testing is done and carried out.

    As for dismissing the test so easily, Why not ? There is many other reliable sources to check tests if you want why not check with one that has been doing it for awhile instead of Joeblow off the street with to much time on his hands ?
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 16, 2010
  16. NAMOR

    NAMOR Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 19, 2004
    Posts:
    1,526
    Location:
    Arkham Asylum
    For me, it's because too many of these "tests" are cropping up and when you compare the results as a whole, the AV's rankings are all over the place.
     
  17. smage

    smage Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2008
    Posts:
    377
    Hi thanks for the explanation.
    But if a product has good proactive protection, should it not be able to protect agains these samples? If a user got redirected to any of these sites, he would expect his AV to protect him.

    Yes AV-C is an independent and professional organisation sponsored by AV companies, so it cannot be compared to these amateur tests. But the results of AV-C can be quite misleading at times. Look at Mcafee for example, with its Artemis technology it started to perform quite well in AV-C on demand tests, so had there not been the dynamic tests which they only introduced last year, people would have thought that they will be protected by using Mcafee on their machine.

    P.S: If you have knowledge, let others light their candles at it(Margaret Fuller).

    For dynamic tests, I know of only 2 reliable sources: AV-C and AV Test.
    What I do not understand is why his reviews are dismissed while those of Matt and Languy99 are not?

    Hmm now I understand it well, people do not agree with his tests because he has used them to classify products into best and worst.
     
    Last edited: Jan 16, 2010
  18. Mack Jones

    Mack Jones Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2003
    Posts:
    174
    Location:
    France

    It's not what he says about A or B but the way he do. :shifty:
     
  19. Mack Jones

    Mack Jones Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2003
    Posts:
    174
    Location:
    France
    That's why there are proactive tests ;)
     
  20. Mack Jones

    Mack Jones Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2003
    Posts:
    174
    Location:
    France
    Wise sentence my friend :thumb:

    for further details, we can read again this article:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margin_of_error

    Once again, the sample size is the key.

    Cheers,
    MJ
     
  21. Mack Jones

    Mack Jones Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2003
    Posts:
    174
    Location:
    France
    No. It's a matter of statistics.
    Say A detects 70% of infected links and B 50%.
    If you choose 10 links, that does mean A would stop 7 and B 5. Here is the margin of error I spoke earlier.

    Let's take a example:
    Ten infected links:
    1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

    A detects 1 from 7 and B 6 to 10 (remember 70% and 50%).
    If you choose links 1 3 6 7 and 10, product A detects now 3 of 10 samples and product B 3 too. Both products detects 50% of infected URLs.
    If you choose now links 2 6 8 9 10, A detects only 2 sample and B 4.
    What's wrong ?

    Your sample size is too short.
    In fact, you could not be sure to be protected more by product A if you try with few samples. In some cases, that'll be true, in some others, false.

    -> Statiscally, product A will be better is you reduce the margin error, the sample size in fact.
    -> Statistically, Peghorse's results may be inverse with the next 15 infected links he could try.

    Never forget AV science is also statistical science...but not only :)
     
  22. PegHorse

    PegHorse Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2005
    Posts:
    11
    Location:
    France
    Ha Ha Ha, YOU ARE ALL HILLARIOUS !
    - You don't speak French
    - You can't understand French
    - So, you are not able to UNDERSTAND what i'm doing in my blog, all is explained, the reasons, what i'm doing etc...

    And what i heard from my fans right now o_O
    That here in WILDERSSECURITY, people are flaming in my back, saying ~ snip ~ without knowing ? Don't you have better things to do in your life ?

    ~ snip ~

    Fine, that's said too.

    My job is not to do as everyone do.
    All testing sites use always same protocol and same judgement, my job is not to provide this.
    In fact, i'm testing all products with LATEST FRESH malwares, Trojans, Rogues that i can find in the day or the evening, so most of them are not in Database yet, and that's what i'm looking for, to see if the Antivirus vendor which ALL are claiming to fight unknown threats what they have in their tools to Kill them.

    With all of tests we can see indeed, that most of them are liers, most are based to their database and Heuristic which are rarely works.

    So, the goal of all of my videos and my methodology is to harass Security products with latest and newest threats as possible. That's why, i can't test all products with same threats because its taking too much times by encoding video, enhance sounds, sending them and etc... If i would take always same malwares, the test would be fake because it would be unknown from First products and known from the rest just because the newest threats became known Threats.

    My blog is not multilanguage and i have no intention to do it because my English is not perfect and i want a perfect blog.
    Also for such tests you have Mrizos on youtube and the forum www.remove-malware.com. This guy is US and speaks English, his methodology is slightly different than mine, but you'll have to deal with it.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 16, 2010
  23. Fajo

    Fajo Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2008
    Posts:
    1,812
    Well I had my laugh for the day, Thanks! This post also shows the complete lack of understanding about how AV's work let alone the features and techniques they use. :blink:
     
  24. smage

    smage Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2008
    Posts:
    377

    Hi thanks for taking the time to explain unlike some arrogant folks that just boast about their great knowledge.

    AV-C dynamic tests is the right way to go then.

    Regards

    P.S: “The truest characters of ignorance are vanity, and pride and arrogance.” Samuel Butler quotes
     
    Last edited: Jan 16, 2010
  25. PegHorse

    PegHorse Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2005
    Posts:
    11
    Location:
    France
    You think you know better than me how AV's works ??
    GO ahead i'm listening, i will have plenty of laugh today too, because if there is someone is knowing this is me.
    I have very often disinfected computers just because of antiviruses sucking.
    NO one is testing like me so i do it myself.

    So please ! Teach me, i'm growing impatient to hear ~ snip ~
    If i'm doing what i'm doing its just because i know perfectly how AV's works.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 16, 2010
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.