Testing bodies AV‐Comparatives, AV‐TEST and Virus Bulletin comment on allegations of inappropriate

I don't know what has gone on here to be honest,none of us do but AV-C has contradicted themselves on how and where they obtain the products they test and I wonder if this is the 1st time and 1st product this has happened with or is just the 1st time it has been discovered,I just hope the folk who test drugs we put in to our bodies are more professional and diligent than the labs that test what we put on our computers,if a product starts performing significantly better than it historically has wouldn't that be open to investigation into what has changed for that product,or is all that matters is the result?

 

Whats an amazing about Qihoo,I didn't feel shocks about hearing this type of news about Qihoo.
They doing so much same news before to effort users.

Today their statement was says they quite AV-C test
Says AV-C was outdated and not suitable for current cloud anti-virus industries
AV-C testing environment is not suitable for current users etc.
Also remind How good it was when they first introduce in Chinese Market etc.
http://weibo.com/p/1001603838152715428532

However before this "shock news"Qihoo was always saying AV-C is the most top Anti-Virus competitions.they using strictly method to test the anti-virus in-order to get the achievements.Not only that.they do always including AV-C and AV-T result on the advertisements.
How mean it was.
Just simple.
found treats before=> professional
Found you treats the result=>is not suitable for currents users environment
Qihoo,How about VB and AV-Test?
Don't ignorance,and only blame the AV-C.
Let's be fair.leave these two test too now!and met your type of achievements.

 

So they quite AV-C test. Funny. As if what happened was a AV-C fault and not a Qihoo's fault. Ehi! You found me cheating, you are not good anymore!

 

This is why I don't bother using any AV, I just don't know what is trustworthy and what is not.

Too many fishy stories going on about AV companies, it just seems better to not use one anymore.

To me, the better security solutions are usually non AV related and more than likely from passionate and honest developers (Sandboxing, Anti-executables, etc.).

These are the developers that deserve the praise, because most of them take security very seriously and are involved with their community.

But, If I were to make an exception, it would be Emsisoft and Malwarebytes.

 

probably all ,well most,of the developers of all av products started as passionate and honest developers,you shouldn't tar all with the same brush AND you could be trusting folk who develop the software you seem to trust that you shouldn't be so trusting of,who really knows anybody's real motives/intentions in the long run,for instance malwarebytes has come in for a fair amount of criticism for their practices yet you say you would make an exception and trust them,you pays your money(or not if you use free products) and takes your choice,if that choice turns out to be bad make another choice

 

Many AV companies that I have dealt with have been a headache for me in some way, shape or form (Many wrongs have out weighed the rights).

So, I have my personal reasons for not using AV software

Narrowing my list down to non-AV (Sandbox, Anti-executable), Malwarebytes and Emsisoft are based off my own personal experiences (Mostly positive) and should not reflect upon anyone else.

As far as the motives/intentions of my trusted companies...

I'll make the prompt decision to change my mind if need be (If said company did something wrong), until then/for now, they will remain on my trusted list.

That's what makes us all unique, we can all have a different view on thing's

 

Here is a page with the translation of Qihoo's reasons for withdrawing.

http://www.hihuadu.com/2015/05/02/3...i-virus-evaluation-criteria-behind-20812.html

 

I wonder why they didn't withdraw from testing by other two testing agencies (AV-TEST and VB100)? I doubt that both agencies and their testing procedures comply with their requests. To me it looks like they just want to get even.

 

I had little confidence in security companies* prior to this incident(s). It's not a matter of cynicism. It's my interpretation of companies' product presentation and a lack of transparency (non-proprietary) that's especially evident when they actively or passively obfuscate exposed flaws or shortcomings. And yes, I understand that the nature of their business requires some discretion.

I had had a bit more confidence in the testing organizations. My unease with them in the past has mainly rested upon my inability to measure their objectivity to my own satisfaction. I did think they had a decent level of competence. I have less confidence in them today.

I'm just a disappointed human venting/opining on a forum, for what that's worth. I'd be willing to pay for objective, competent, for profit testing. I'm not sure that that business model currently exists. If anyone knows of any such, please point me to it. TIA.

I'm not here to comment often so I'll take this opportunity to -- Thank Wilders for providing a venue for some level of discussion and to Wilders' members for providing their input here and elsewhere. It's been helpful to me and I'm sure to many others. Better to know than not.





*(I would've never done business with the three companies in the 'report'. But that was/is a political calculation and to discuss that would be a violation of the forum's TOS.)

 

I think both parties messed up but I am just going to sit back and enjoy this drama.

 

Yeah, I think I will too.

 

Are they having a laugh or what ? Afaik the methodology has not changed since testing began this year, but all of a sudden AV-C method is "not suitable for current cloud anti-virus". Then why did they even participate in the 2015 test series if it is not suitable for them.

 

Who knows
but that was their true side lol.
They just want to create some "news".but this time AV-C just become an sacrifice in this
criticism.

 

Somebody on Qihoo's Google Plus page has already asked the question about cheating.

https://plus.google.com/communities/104620459102090353616

 

Someone also did that on their official forum
but result is "Deleted"
Don't expect so much about they will respond in positive way

 

Here's my final take on this, and from now on, I will unfollow this thread because it has become so ridiculous.

1: Testing companies screwed up because obviously strict guidance was not followed.
2: Qihoo should have submitted default [home user] version no matter what.
2a: No sanctions provided for other competitors despite clear evidence of them having modifications as well.
3: If test demands keygens, cracks and patchers as malicious, then testing Qihoo is useless as a lot of Chinese users use this on a daily basis. And, those serving it's purpose, are safe to use files. So test would be invalid.
4: Testing procedures which do not follow the antivirus technology [cloud, containerisation/sandboxing, hips/bb] but rely on signatures only are outdated and cannot represent product effectiveness.
5: What's the use of a test showing product A scoring high when home user gets infected because of a missed detection?

So therefore, I am concluding this soap opera drama. On one hand, it's a good thing it happened, but also bad on how it happened....

Shame....

 

I see. Qihoo should have played by the rules but can be excused for gaming the system because Qihoo believes the the testing procedures suck anyway, so there. Interesting. It may be wise to unfollow Qihoo.

 

AV à la carte!
Protection accoding to the national needs....
Well, let's start: One set of updates/signatures for USA, another one for Japan, etc.......

 

Qihoo's plan to pass AV-C's test - turn on Bitdefender engine, turn off Qihoo engine. Looks like Qihoo admits Bitdefender is a better AV and that Bitdefender rules. And the engine they buy from Bitdefender doesn't have BD's Photon or AutoPilot features.

 

qihoo participated because they wanted to be on their list, it's business. qihoo had to tweak the product to suit their testing method in order to score "accordingly" to their method. now that they don't want to play the game, qihoo has no choice but to pull out, just like some other av companies.

the tweaked av directed the cloud server to the one "closer" to the test labs. so yes, different locality has different needs, at least according to qihoo. i also believe chinese users used a lot of cracked and patched softwares. so if they left those switched on in chinese market, the av would be sounding alarm every minute in their pc's.....

 

If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck... in some countries, it may not be a duck after all.

 

Emsisoft doesn't have an AV component?

 

Who cares what Qihoo says.

Only the Chinese are using a lot of cracked and patched software? No one else in the world?

Really? Have you ever heard the words "AV Settings" / "Exemptions" ?

 

At least they were not wasting money/man power just for the tests like Microsoft were.

 

what they haven't heard of is paying for legitimate software