1. You are viewing our forum as a guest. For full access please Register. WindowsBBS.com is completely free, paid for by advertisers and donations.

Trusting the AV reviews

Discussion in 'Security and Privacy' started by James, 2006/08/28.

  1. 2006/08/28
    James

    James Inactive Thread Starter

    Joined:
    2004/07/14
    Messages:
    1,004
    Likes Received:
    0
    I'm wondering about the reliability of AV reviews. The reason I say this has to do with the most recent issue of Consumer Reports. According to this report (which I consider to be about as unbiased as one can get), BitDefender performed better than the other AV programs particularly at dealing with viruses that had been altered as opposed to those already known. So, that caused me to start wondering about AV programs in general and I went on a search. I've spent about a week now, reading reviews and evaluations all over the internet and discovered one common thread: very little agreement. One reviewer touts Kaspersky as the best whereas another NOD32 and yet another BitDefender... and on and on.

    Can we trust these reviews, particularly in light of the fact that many are agreeing on the areas of testing but disagreeing in their final evaluations? How do we make an informed decision apart from the biases of various users and reviewers?
     
  2. 2006/08/28
    PeteC

    PeteC SuperGeek Staff

    Joined:
    2002/05/10
    Messages:
    28,889
    Likes Received:
    386
    I suspect that each reviewer's conclusion will be based on not only the effectiveness of the av software, but also on appearance, ease of use, ease of setting up, etc.

    Important to remember that a common test procedure is not used between reviewers so absolute direct comparisons are not valid.

    Bottom line is there are some fine antivirus programs available and each does the job well and the best is the one you feel comfortable with. Antivirus software is a bit like insurance - you never know how good it is until push comes to shove and you catch a virus or have to make a claim :)
     

  3. to hide this advert.

  4. 2006/08/29
    Welshjim

    Welshjim Inactive

    Joined:
    2002/01/07
    Messages:
    5,643
    Likes Received:
    0
    I think I have seen a blog similar to that below about Consumer Reports' procedure in testing AV programs. Certainly the references are not complimentary about CU' s approach to testing antispyware programs
    http://discussions.virtualdr.com/showthread.php?t=210137
    Possibly CU should become a little more knowledgeable before they venture away from their usual fields of expertise.
    Here is what PCWorld had to say about AV programs in their recent review (not that I can claim they would be completely unbiased).
    http://www.pcworld.com/reviews/article/0,aid,124163,pg,1,00.asp
    To summarize the PCW report said "BitDefender, McAfee, and Kaspersky Lab top our chart, showing excellent ability to detect both known and unknown malware." But McAfee is often mentioned on this and other Forums for causing conflicts with other programs.
    And another recent review
    http://anti-virus-software-review.toptenreviews.com/
     
    Last edited: 2006/08/29
  5. 2006/08/29
    charlesvar

    charlesvar Inactive Alumni

    Joined:
    2002/02/18
    Messages:
    7,024
    Likes Received:
    0
    FWIW, a long thread at Wilders on the Consumer Reports AV test.

    http://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?t=141978
    Always a potential problem with reviews - treating the program in isolation and not considering the way it interacts with other software or the load on the System.

    Regards - Charles
     
  6. 2006/08/31
    charlesvar

    charlesvar Inactive Alumni

    Joined:
    2002/02/18
    Messages:
    7,024
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hi James,

    Antispyware comparison from Malware Test-lab (07 Aug 06)
    http://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?t=142306

    The link is to a, by now long thread, on a particular testing orginization that tests anti spyware apps. While not about AV testing, it does give you an idea about how tests should be conducted and the judgments involved.

    Regards - Charles
     
  7. 2006/08/31
    James

    James Inactive Thread Starter

    Joined:
    2004/07/14
    Messages:
    1,004
    Likes Received:
    0
    Thanks, Charles. I read through the discussion and learned several things. One thing that I see that sets off the Consumer Report testing is its complete impartiality. Consumer Reports hired a security firm that has the wherewithall to conduct such security tests. They took known viruses (virii?) and altered them so that they would not be "known" by the apps tested. Consumer Reports (unlike many of the magazines and websites who advertise for AV companies) does not accept money, advertising or any other perks from any company and purchases the products itself to do the testing so that they receive products similar to what you and I would purchase.

    After looking over their results and scouring the internet for reports on AV comparative programs, I decided to write to the president of CounterSpy which I use for spyware, as well as a local computer techie who has been in my home and helped to set up my network here. Both said that while they agreed with the results of the CR story, they continued to use AVG in their homes, albeit both businesses use BitDefender on their servers and within their companies. They believed the level of protection afforded by AVG was ample as long as I continued using a "layered" approach to my security.

    Thanks for the information.
     
  8. 2006/09/01
    PeteC

    PeteC SuperGeek Staff

    Joined:
    2002/05/10
    Messages:
    28,889
    Likes Received:
    386
  9. 2006/09/01
    James

    James Inactive Thread Starter

    Joined:
    2004/07/14
    Messages:
    1,004
    Likes Received:
    0
    I have to tell you, Pete, I don't find it pertinent at all. I find it disengenous. Had McAfee performed better, I'm certain they would be singing a different tune right now. I notice that BitDefender is not complaining. Wonder why? :rolleyes:
     
  10. 2006/09/02
    PeteC

    PeteC SuperGeek Staff

    Joined:
    2002/05/10
    Messages:
    28,889
    Likes Received:
    386
    More here - including a response from at least one party who had no direct interest.

    http://www.securitypronews.com/news...0060816ConsumerReportsCreates5500Viruses.html

    It is pertinent IMO in that the testing procedure is flawed and artificial and does not represent a real life scenario.

    Of course Bitdefender have not commented - after all this flawed testing procedure has worked to their (commercial) advantage. The only thing that companies make is money - how they do it is secondary.
     
  11. 2006/09/02
    James

    James Inactive Thread Starter

    Joined:
    2004/07/14
    Messages:
    1,004
    Likes Received:
    0
    Quote: "The AV community has always been very strongly opposed to the creation of new malware for any purpose. There's just no need for it - plenty of new viruses are being written all the time, why would anyone in a responsible position want to add to the glut?' "

    Now this is the sort of silly speak that I find disturbing. First off, the tests were conducted in a "sand-box" as it were. There is next to no chance of any of this "leaking" onto the net. The entire set of altered malware is contained on a cd and locked in a safe. Is it possible that it might be leaked? Yes, albeit highly unlikely. Saying that there is no need for such a test... that there are "plenty of viruses written all the time" is silly. They needed to get hold of viruses that had not been seen by any AV company so that there could not be a response from the company such as... "yes, we've dealt with that virus successfully." Waiting for a collection of viruses and then testing them before other AV companies had a chance to deal with them would have been nigh to impossible. So, they created an artificial environment and tested the programs of these companies at the effectiveness of their products to react to such. BitDefender is part of the group of companies and yet it did not protest. You say that this is because it came out on top. Well... by the same token you must admit that in all probability, McAfee is whining about the test for the very same vested interest... it performed rather poorly.

    I read through hundreds of responses from computer techs to ordinary users following the published test results and the vast majority were in favor of CR's methods and findings. Like I said... I'm tending towards supporting CR since they have absolutely no vested interest... unlike McAfee and company. McAfee would like the industry to police itself. Sadly, it seldom works that way.
     

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.