Security Vendors Mad About 'Consumer Reports' Test Methods

Discussion in 'malware problems & news' started by ronjor, Aug 25, 2006.

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

    ronjor Global Moderator

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2003
    Posts:
    57,763
    Location:
    Texas
    Story
     
  2. Rasheed187

    Rasheed187 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2004
    Posts:
    8,026
    Location:
    The Netherlands
    Let´s face it, the only reason why they are mad is because they are afraid of the results, this test will probaly show the serious shortcomings of AV/AS/AT´s against zero day malware, heuristics are just not good enough at the moment. :rolleyes:
     
  3. SSK

    SSK Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2004
    Posts:
    976
    Location:
    Amsterdam
    No, consumer organisations should stick with what they do best... Testing tellies and toasters. :thumbd:
     
  4. halcyon

    halcyon Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2003
    Posts:
    373
  5. kjempen

    kjempen Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2004
    Posts:
    379
    What are tests like this supposed to demonstrate? How well heuristics will protect you against malware that you will never ever meet in the wild, unless the testers themselves release it into the wild? What does it matter if antivirus A scores high while antivirus B scores low? What will the result tell you? That antivirus A has higher probability of protecting you from malware that you (or any other user) will never ever come across? And what's the usefulness in that?

    Aren't tests like the retrospective tests of AV-Comparatives and AV-Test.org (if I remember right) much more sensible as they test antiviruses against malware that have actually been in the wild, and does gives indication of how well an antivirus will protect you from "coming threats"?
     
  6. JerryM

    JerryM Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2003
    Posts:
    4,221
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.