No problem. Just pointing out issues with the testing methodology for one of the test participants as well as the reliability of the published test results really just calls to question the whole test more than defending a specific participant. When reliability in any case comes into question, one may then speculate that the whole test may be faulty. At that point, taking any of its results seriously can be bad. The number one rule of Statistics and Testing is that it's relatively easy to make the numbers say what you want with the proper data presentation. Weighting, scaling, omission of certain aspects, etc... "99 out of 100 people said they like this product!" That sounds great if that's the entirety of what they tell you. Dig into this fictional test and find out the methodology, and it tell a different story: "We went to 200 people on the street and said, 'Say the words `I like this product.' and we will pay you this five dollar bill. 101 of them cussed us out and ranted about hating the product so much that they wouldn't lie for cash. 99 of them accepted the money and said they liked it. We tossed out 100 of the ranters and of the remaining 100, 99 of them said they like it because we paid them to say that. So we can publish that 99 out of 100 people say they like it.' Thankfully it's not normally that extreme, but at the same time, when results really need to be good, they can be massaged. For example, the "Malicious Site Detection System"... How does it work? Does it visit a site and then scan the results with Norton to find out if Norton says it's malicious, then count everything Norton sees as malicious and therefore it can be used in the testing? Less-extreme, does it scan and test the results with the same DB that Norton uses to make its own determinations? None of these are explained, so one can only assume that either situation could be the case. It could be fully legit, or it could be weighted in favor of a specific contender. 40 samples of malware that can only affect under 2% of the web-browsing population just doesn't strike me as a reliable test though.