VB100 update

Discussion in 'other anti-virus software' started by IBK, Jan 17, 2008.

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

    IBK AV Expert

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2003
    Posts:
    1,819
    Location:
    Innsbruck (Austria)
  2. C.S.J

    C.S.J Massive Poster

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2006
    Posts:
    5,029
    Location:
    this forum is biased!
    Void,

    the more I hear about vb tests and results and mistakes, the more I dismiss the test completely!

    IBK, you have been quite lately, what you been up
    to? ;)
     
  3. IBK

    IBK AV Expert

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2003
    Posts:
    1,819
    Location:
    Innsbruck (Austria)
    we are busy in preparing everything for the next february test.
     
  4. jrmhng

    jrmhng Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2007
    Posts:
    1,268
    Location:
    Australia
    I do get the bad vibe in these forums about the VB100.

    What are some of the issues that make it not so representative of any real life situation?

    I've heard criticism about the wildlist. Some people have wrote that 'in the wild' is misleading and this list does not include the viruses actually in circulation. Is this true?
     
  5. sasa843

    sasa843 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2007
    Posts:
    113
    Location:
    Serbia, Europe
    I noticed that always the reason for mistakes is: submited product came with older detection file and some settings in product were disabled.

    Can they check these things before they start test?
     
  6. flyrfan111

    flyrfan111 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2004
    Posts:
    1,224
    Sounds like they need a testing checklisto_O
     
  7. trjam

    trjam Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2006
    Posts:
    9,057
    Location:
    North Carolina
    maybe IBK should test them in Feb.;)
     
  8. ErikAlbert

    ErikAlbert Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2005
    Posts:
    9,455
    If that is true, you get a pretty good idea of how professional these people are, running these tests. :rolleyes:
     
  9. MalwareDie

    MalwareDie Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2006
    Posts:
    500
    I even remember VB having infected files in their supposedly clean set of files.
     
  10. EliteKiller

    EliteKiller Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2007
    Posts:
    1,138
    Location:
    TX
    IMO, yes. These vendors have come to realize the marketing significance of these tests, and the effort they put into their products to pass the VB100 tests may not reflect the effort they put into detecting viruses outside of those included in the VB100 test set. It's possible for an AV product to pass all the VB100 tests but still have mediocre virus detection.
     
  11. computer geek

    computer geek Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2007
    Posts:
    776
    Yes, i agree, vb100 only tests in the wild viruses.
     
  12. C.S.J

    C.S.J Massive Poster

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2006
    Posts:
    5,029
    Location:
    this forum is biased!
    even that, i aint sure about.

    like any test, it shouldnt be taken seriously.

    although VB are geniune, its not very ... erm... challenging.

    if an AV vendor really wants to pass it, it can.

    this makes me think, that VB are losing a little bit of credibility, or some vendors just dont care about it as much now.
     
  13. jrmhng

    jrmhng Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2007
    Posts:
    1,268
    Location:
    Australia
    Why do vendors still fail?
     
  14. RejZoR

    RejZoR Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2004
    Posts:
    6,426
    Mostly because of false positives. It's not all that hard to detect everything, it's much harder to detect ONLY actual malware and not clean files that may look similar...
     
  15. jrmhng

    jrmhng Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2007
    Posts:
    1,268
    Location:
    Australia
    For alot of the AVs that fail, it is not just false positive but wildlist misses too.
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.