Whither Testing PrevX ??

Discussion in 'Prevx Releases' started by Longboard, Jan 20, 2010.

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

    Longboard Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2004
    Posts:
    3,187
    Location:
    Sydney, Australia
    Are we any closer to seeing some objective tests for PrevX.
    ( i might have missed something somewhere)
    I recall there was some mention of that previously from PrevX.
    I know all the rhetoric re standard test modes.
    Give some unencumbered $$ to AVC and let them loose.
    Think of the marketing opportunities when the result is available.
    :)
     
    Last edited: Jan 20, 2010
  2. PrevxHelp

    PrevxHelp Former Prevx Moderator

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2008
    Posts:
    8,242
    Location:
    USA/UK
    :) We aren't going with AVC but we should be announcing some results very soon ;)
     
  3. PC__Gamer

    PC__Gamer Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2009
    Posts:
    526
    who by?

    and why 'soon', dont you know when?

    a little birdie told me you had results months ago for Prevx and that id be happy to see them, what ever happened to those ones? (or have i missed it maybe)
     
  4. PrevxHelp

    PrevxHelp Former Prevx Moderator

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2008
    Posts:
    8,242
    Location:
    USA/UK
    The results are already out publicly but I'm not going to publish them here yet until we make an official press release :)
     
  5. PC__Gamer

    PC__Gamer Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2009
    Posts:
    526
    what are you waiting for then, make one. :D
     
  6. Pleonasm

    Pleonasm Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2007
    Posts:
    1,201
    What considerations were influential in your decision to not engage AV-Comparatives for the testing of Prevx?

    Thank you.
     
  7. Fajo

    Fajo Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2008
    Posts:
    1,812
    My guess would be how AV-C Currently tests AV's would not work so well in a cloud based AV. At least that's the picture I get from Prevx and AV-C
     
  8. Triple Helix

    Triple Helix Webroot Product Advisor

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2004
    Posts:
    12,011
    Location:
    Ontario, Canada
    Yes I remember Joe mentioning that before! :thumb:

    TH
     
  9. Pleonasm

    Pleonasm Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2007
    Posts:
    1,201
    Historically, I agree. However, the most recent (December, 2009) dynamic test performed by AV-Comparatives employed a live Internet connection (see here). Thus, I don’t see an incompatibility between Prevx and this dynamic testing methodology -- but, if one exists, please elaborate.
     
  10. TonyW

    TonyW Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2005
    Posts:
    2,633
    Location:
    UK
    None of the products tested listed in that dynamic test are pure-cloud based technologies, which Prevx is. Admittedly, some use some form of in-the-cloud protection in addition to other techniques, but most are using local signatures from what I can see. However, it looks like AV-C didn't take reputation services into account; for example, see the note on page 7 ref: Norton's Download Insight. Had they used it, Symantec would apparently have detected the one malware it missed.
     
  11. Pleonasm

    Pleonasm Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2007
    Posts:
    1,201
    True, but the dynamic testing methodology employed by AV-Comparatives would provide a fair and accurate assessment for a “pure” cloud-based anti-malware application -- correct?

    At least in the case of Norton Internet Security 2010, “reputation” isn’t confined to the Download Insight capability, but is embedded throughout the functionality of the suite (e.g., within heuristic detection). Nonetheless, the (somewhat odd) decision by AV-Comparatives not to consider warnings from Download Insight in their assessment wouldn’t hamper the use of the same dynamic testing methodology to Prevx -- correct?
     
  12. TonyW

    TonyW Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2005
    Posts:
    2,633
    Location:
    UK
    I don't know if it's correct in either case. Only AV-C would be able to tell us why they consider it not important to test pure cloud-based AM products. Thus far, they seem to have avoided such tests. It's a question that could also be levelled at AMTSO as to whether dynamic testing methods can be applied to such cloud-based technologies.
     
  13. Pleonasm

    Pleonasm Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2007
    Posts:
    1,201
    It’s not at all clear that AV-Comparatives made a purposeful decision to avoid testing “pure” cloud-based anti-malware products in their most recent dynamic test. The absence of Prevx from that test may have nothing to do with the fact that the product uses no local signatures -- it may be due simply to the fact that Prevx isn’t a security suite.

    If Prevx had been included in the dynamic test conducted by AV-Comparatives, however, it seems to me that the resulting analysis and assessment would have accurately and fairly reflected the performance of the product.
     
  14. Pleonasm

    Pleonasm Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2007
    Posts:
    1,201
    It’s been more than a week since this comment was posted -- any update on when the anti-virus comparative results will appear publically on this forum?

    Just checkin' . . .
     
  15. PrevxHelp

    PrevxHelp Former Prevx Moderator

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2008
    Posts:
    8,242
    Location:
    USA/UK
    The results are already publicly available on the web but we're waiting for an official press release before repeating them :)
     
  16. Page42

    Page42 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2007
    Posts:
    5,828
    Location:
    Last Breath Farm
    Why not point the Prevx faithful (and some not-so-faithfuls) in the direction of the public results? Unless the press release is really damage control. C'mon Joe, shake 'em loose. ;)
    (Edit... just saw Joe's post.)
     
  17. Pleonasm

    Pleonasm Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2007
    Posts:
    1,201
    Indeed. Why not post a URL to the testing organization’s website containing the anti-virus comparative report, for example? I fail to grasp the downside risk of immediately doing so, since the information is "already publically available on the web."
     
  18. Page42

    Page42 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2007
    Posts:
    5,828
    Location:
    Last Breath Farm
    Well, I hope I'm not stealing PrevxHelp's thunder, but I've found the 'publicly available' listing...

    Looks to me like Prevx has received the full Checkmark certification for Antivirus, Antispyware, and Antitrojan from WestCoastLabs.

    Check it out here. :thumb: :thumb: :thumb:
     
  19. Page42

    Page42 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2007
    Posts:
    5,828
    Location:
    Last Breath Farm
    "The Checkmark Certification programs validate the functionality and performance of both content and network security technologies in a range of threat scenarios and attack vectors from standard baseline benchmarking tests against accepted industry standards, to Real Time testing that sees products under continuous test against zero day real world threats 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year."
     

    Attached Files:

  20. Triple Helix

    Triple Helix Webroot Product Advisor

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2004
    Posts:
    12,011
    Location:
    Ontario, Canada
    Good find Page42 :thumb:

    TH
     
  21. Saraceno

    Saraceno Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2008
    Posts:
    2,404
  22. trjam

    trjam Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2006
    Posts:
    9,057
    Location:
    North Carolina
    you folks do realize who they show as their big winners are, dont you. Err, AVG, CA, just seems weird.
     
  23. Pleonasm

    Pleonasm Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2007
    Posts:
    1,201
    The Checkmark Certification appears to be a comparison of an anti-malware product’s performance to standards set by West Coast Labs -- not a comparison of a product’s performance to those of its competitors. Thus, it is an “award” but not a “comparative.” Personally, I was hoping to see information on the latter theme providing empirical insight into the (audacious?) claim that Prevx is the “World's strongest, fastest, most powerful security solution” (as stated here).

    P.S.: FYI -- Norton AntiVirus earned the Checkmark Certification years ago (see here), but it appears that Symantec has discontinued their relationship with West Cost Labs.
     
  24. silverfox99

    silverfox99 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2006
    Posts:
    204
  25. PrevxHelp

    PrevxHelp Former Prevx Moderator

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2008
    Posts:
    8,242
    Location:
    USA/UK
    Yes, this is an award which guarantees a level of proficiency in all of the areas tested - including antivirus, antitrojan, and antispyware protection - proving that Prevx provides comprehensive protection as a standalone solution as it has been verified by a third party to provide significant antivirus/trojan/spyware protection.

    I don't believe this is true: http://westcoastlabs.com/checkmark/...stResult/?productID=326&techGroupID=27&from=v

    Symantec was last tested in 2009 multiple times and has passed most, but not all of the tests of this past year.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.