Security Vendors Mad About 'Consumer Reports' Test Methods

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.

 

No, consumer organisations should stick with what they do best... Testing tellies and toasters.

 

Heise Security author has a word on the issue:

www.heise-security.co.uk/articles/77440

 

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"?

 

According to VB, CS admits they did not test the AS applications against any spyware. Not too good. What an org.
http://www.virusbtn.com/news/virus_news/2006/09_01_SEPT_ISSUE.xml

Some things CS does well and some not well.

Jerry