PassMark Software: Fast and Effective Endpoint Security for Business 2012

http://www.passmark.com/benchmark-reports/

Metrics included in the report selected by ESET LLC and production of the report funded by ESET LLC.

 

BOGUS Test Alert!

ESET must have thought long and hard how to word this test. "Fast and effective" Hmm!!

I give them "fast".

How about effective ?? Well the only tests that ESET is good at are the VB100 tests, which are about as relevant in today's world as the Compaq iPaq, and the AV-Comparatives Retrospective on-demand tests, which as we all know tell you nothing about the real-world effectiveness of a product.

Why didn't they use the "real world tests" from AV-Comparatives for this paper ? Because ESET sucks in that test.

So there you have it, a vendor-sponsored tests which is torn apart in 10 minutes.

 

Not to defend Passmark nor ESET and nothing against your reasoning with which I agree, but you seemed very happy about the Symantec-sponsored Passmark tests in the past. Don't you think its a little ironic that you defend Passmark when it is Symantec paying the bill and providing the test scripts but cry foul it when it's ESET paying the bill?

To me *ANY* sponsored test is just simply just manipulated crappy advertising. Maybe we should block passmark.com as "unwanted adware"?

 

I believe all AV companies play such marketing tricks.

 

Pbust said it best.

 

Have you read the Passmark test sponsored by Symantec. If you have you will know that they don't sanction silly tests like retrospective or on-demand as a measure of effectiveness. If they did, I would slam them too. Get your facts straight.

Don't you work for Panda. If so you are likely "sponsoring" tests done by AV-Test and Av-Comparatives as I hear that all vendors pay those guys a fee for testing. So stop quoting them on your website at http://research.pandasecurity.com/security/av-test/

 

I think you mean to say "approve" or "support" instead of "sanction". Otherwise your sentence doesn't make a lot of sense given that Symantec, like I, does NOT defend on-demand and retrospective as a measure of effectiveness. This is probably the reason they pulled out of AVC. Putting that aside, you might not have read my first sentence which actually agrees with your reason for "slamming" them:

Yes I do work for Panda for over 15 years, so I do know what I'm talking about and I can tell you there is a BIG difference between participating in independent tests where all AV have equal footing (equal payment to participate, equal access to missed samples, equal access to tester, equal options at configuration, equal etc.) and a test where only 1 vendor pays for the test, decides against whom and with which config and decides and sometimes provides the testing scripts, samples and even rating criteria. In these sponsored tests the rest of the AV vendors most times don't even know they are being tested nor are they given a chance to review or dispute missed samples, FPs, configuration, the methodology, etc.

Maybe it is a bit hard to understand the difference between "sponsored" and "independent" but believe me, they are by no means the same... not even close.

 

Yes I do work for Panda for over 15 years, so I do know what I'm talking about and I can tell you there is a BIG difference between participating in independent tests where all AV have equal footing (equal payment to participate, equal access to missed samples, equal access to tester, equal options at configuration, equal etc.) and a test where only 1 vendor pays for the test, decides against whom and with which config and decides and sometimes provides the testing scripts, samples and even rating criteria. In these sponsored tests the rest of the AV vendors most times don't even know they are being tested nor are they given a chance to review or dispute missed samples, FPs, configuration, the methodology, etc.

Maybe it is a bit hard to understand the difference between "sponsored" and "independent" but believe me, they are by no means the same... not even close.[/QUOTE]

Thank you, I really appreciate your straightforward answer!

 

Something's fishy.

Like it or not, that's how the world works, Pedro.

 

It's still fishy. Many here are Symantec fanboys. But you're just off the chart.

 

I couldn't agree more.

 

Ditto.

 

Seriously They paid for the test, they must know they are being tested. They know exactly when the tester is going to have the results ready

I know for a fact this is not true.

 

I think you're confused again. I'm talking about "sponsored" tests. Test which are commissioned by only 1 AV vendor (ie only 1 vendor pays, like Symantec or ESET in the case of Passmark). In every single sponsored test I've seen in the past I didn't learn about the test until after it was published. The only possible exception here could be the sponsored tests at AV-Test (ie not the regular monthly tests which are not sponsored) which did provide details 24 hours before publishing the results.

I'm interested in knowing how you think you know this for a fact. Normally the details of the sponsored tests are contractually agreed upon between the sponsor (ie Symantec, ESET, etc.) and the organization (Passmark, Dennis, Matousec, etc.). How is it possible that you know details of those contracts "for a fact"?

 

"For a fact" - ah yes, I knew you would catch that. Loose lips sink ships. I am sure you have heard that term Mr. Bustamante. People talk.

The following applies to sponsored and independent tests - Lets take the example of a Symantec-sponsored test. While Symantec and tester may not break their contract, tester also has similar contracts with other vendors when those other vendors do sponsored tests. So those other vendors know how the system works. Now when those other vendors dont do well in a Symantec-sponsored test, they obviously talk openely about flaws in the test when they were sponsoring the test. And thats exactly how people find out whats going on with these sponsored and independent tests.

Since this is happening, the only think I can focus on is the correctness of the test, not whether it is sponspored, indepdendent, who is sponsoring etc. In this thread, ESET had a poor methodology in the test. Symantec on their passmark test had a good methodology. I would trust the Symantec test more than ESET's. That is what it comes down to for me.

 

I am lost... you seem like arguing that black is white...

What is a "good" or "correct" methodology? May be the one in Symantec simply suited their needs? This does not mean it cannot be biased. The point also made is that only the sponsor can argue about it.... the others vendors are not consulted and cannot in any way influence or contribute to it.

 

You seem to be missing the point. ANY test where only 1 vendor pays to define the methodology, test cases, configuration, ranking system and has preview access to the results and is able to modify the methodology and re-test until it suits them, while the rest of the tested vendors don't have such access is simply BIASED. There's no two ways about it and it doesn't matter how you dress it or what your affiliations are. SPONSORED tests = BIASED test. Period.

 

Yep. And in the case of Symantec, doubly biased