Author Topic: CAV3 detection rate test [2008.10.05] - 10.26% [CLOSED]  (Read 34604 times)

WaterWall

  • Guest
Re: CAV3 detection rate test [2008.10.05] - 10.26%
« Reply #225 on: October 06, 2008, 10:31:48 AM »
He's a troll unless he proves his results.  :)

Offline Toxteth O'Grady

  • Comodo's Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 590
Re: CAV3 detection rate test [2008.10.05] - 10.26%
« Reply #226 on: October 06, 2008, 10:34:45 AM »
Damn. AntiVir, Kaspersky, and NOD32 didn't detect that one. :O But AVG did. Just shows that you need multiple antivirus programs to stay safe in this world. << Though, D+ is great and it gave you that alert, would a uninformed user click allow or deny?


That's the question...

Still, I'd like to think that the user is better of with this warning (that he may choose to ignore for whatever reason) than without any warning at all, like is the case with most scanners here. Not even the best AV scanners can detect everything.

Offline solcroft

  • Comodo Loves me
  • ****
  • Posts: 146
Re: CAV3 detection rate test [2008.10.05] - 10.26%
« Reply #227 on: October 06, 2008, 11:20:57 AM »
Guys your valuable efforts will go nowhere! Cos the intention that solcroft has is not about learning but putting Comodo down. Its as simple as that! Lets concentrate on people who need help rather than trolls who come here with ulterior motive to bash Comodo.
He's a troll unless he proves his results.  :)
No surprise that Melih shows up only to assassinate my character instead of responding to my challenge to give me an opportunity to show my proof, which he's kept absolutely quiet about. No surprise at all.

Offline andyman35

  • Global Moderator
  • Comodo's Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 1579
Re: CAV3 detection rate test [2008.10.04] - 0.00%
« Reply #228 on: October 06, 2008, 12:37:50 PM »
The evidence has been provided. I don't know if you're acting stupid, or are really stupid, or do not know how to click on the provided links, or are illiterate and do not know how to read English after clicking on those links. gibran read the reports, and replied with well-thought responses. Debating this with you, on the other hand, looks like nothing but an absolute waste of time. If you are unwilling or do not have the time to educate yourself on these matters so that you can produce informed opinions and arguments, please don't try to engage in debate.
More regurgitation of media (or possibly Melih) hype with zero background knowledge and understanding.

Recognizing a program as "malicious" is something only a human being can do. Antivirus scanners have no such capability. They scan the code, and if something in it matches what they're programmed to look for, they identify the file as infected. Whether or not the file is active or dormant makes no difference to the scanner, because the code doesn't change.

I can't believe I'm explaining something this simple TWICE. Scanners identify files based on their code. Scanners do not and cannot care whether a file is malicious, or at what times is it malicious. All they can do is scan the code. Please get this into your head before you try to teach others about common sense - something you obviously lack.

Childish insults certainly don't cover for your own intellectual deficiencies.Don't worry about my literacy,worry more about your own inability to grasp the simplest of concepts.Your whole argument is self contradictory and facile,you post links showing how AV testing is a load of rubbish yet you base your opinion of Comodo's BETA (obviously needs reasserting) on your own mythical tests.

Old style signature scanners can't do anything more in the way of determining a file's nature other than comparison with a blacklist but this is exactly what you're expecting Comodo to be and judging it upon.

It's quite obvious  that you are unable to grasp the concept of malware prevention so I'll leave you to your testing fixation and who knows when Comodo is generally released maybe you'll be man enough to admit you were wrong and apologise to Melih if it does indeed protect better than the competition.I somehow doubt it though.

Offline darcjrt

  • Malware Research Group
  • Comodo's Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 466
Re: CAV3 detection rate test [2008.10.05] - 10.26%
« Reply #229 on: October 06, 2008, 12:39:37 PM »
No surprise that Melih shows up only to assassinate my character instead of responding to my challenge to give me an opportunity to show my proof, which he's kept absolutely quiet about. No surprise at all.

This is the least that we expect from solcroft (See attached pics)
Total scanned: 468 (All malware)
Threads found: 207

Detection rate??   44.23%

I am submitting the other 261 files to COMODO right away!!!
Best Regards,

J

Offline andyman35

  • Global Moderator
  • Comodo's Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 1579
Re: prevention as your first line of defense
« Reply #230 on: October 06, 2008, 12:41:12 PM »
Guys your valuable efforts will go nowhere! Cos the intention that solcroft has is not about learning but putting Comodo down. Its as simple as that! Lets concentrate on people who need help rather than trolls who come here with ulterior motive to bash Comodo.

Lets declare this topic "DO NOT FEED THE TROLL ZONE" :)

Melih

I quite agree there that's the last time I'll bother until there's some semblance of reasonable discussion.

Offline solcroft

  • Comodo Loves me
  • ****
  • Posts: 146
Re: CAV3 detection rate test [2008.10.04] - 0.00%
« Reply #231 on: October 06, 2008, 01:01:43 PM »
Childish insults certainly don't cover for your own intellectual deficiencies.Don't worry about my literacy,worry more about your own inability to grasp the simplest of concepts.
I do admit that I'm having trouble grasping the simple concept that clicking on the provided links and reading is beyond your intellectual capabilities, perhaps because it sounds so unbelievable. But now that you put it that way, maybe I'm thinking too much after all; the rules of statistics certainly do declare that there will always be some people who have their level of intellect placed at the extreme lower end of the distribution.

Your whole argument is self contradictory and facile,you post links showing how AV testing is a load of rubbish yet you base your opinion of Comodo's BETA (obviously needs reasserting) on your own mythical tests.
Since you've kindly taken the trouble to explain that your lack of intellectual capabilities is but a simple concept, perhaps I'll return the courtesy by holding your hand through what should be some very straightforward facts for people with normal levels of intelligence. Despite what your delusions may be, I posted links to show that VB100% tests is a load of rubbish, not AV testing at large. But of course, you haven't read them at all despite crying for my claims to be substantiated (for which the evidence was already provided). You are a person who rushes blindly to display that you have an opinion, despite how uninformed and incorrect that opinion may be, so I suppose your mistake is justified.

Old style signature scanners can't do anything more in the way of determining a file's nature other than comparison with a blacklist but this is exactly what you're expecting Comodo to be and judging it upon.
It is quite obvious that you are completely ignorant to the fact that an old-style signature scanner is exactly what Comodo created when they released the product called "Comodo AntiVirus". It is also quite apparent that it has somehow escaped you that, despite it being blindingly obvious to anyone with a normal level of intellect, that I am testing the signature scanning capabilities of this product called "Comodo AntiVirus". Perhaps this explains your outrage and disbelief that I'm actually testing a product to see if it does what it's supposed to do.

apologise to Melih if it does indeed protect better than the competition.I somehow doubt it though.
Well, here's a doubt that we both share. A coincidence indeed.

Offline solcroft

  • Comodo Loves me
  • ****
  • Posts: 146
Re: CAV3 detection rate test [2008.10.05] - 10.26%
« Reply #232 on: October 06, 2008, 01:16:42 PM »
This is the least that we expect from solcroft (See attached pics)
The least you expect from me isn't going to prove much.

I could scan a folder of clean files and "prove" that CAV has a 0% detection rate using a photo. I could produce a screenshot exactly like yours by placing 207 copies of the EICAR test file in a folder. Who'd know what the folder contained? Certainly not anyone who saw nothing but the photo.

I'm challenging Melih to provide a truly verifiable double-blind test per the method I described. I would have proof that I submitted those samples, and that proof would show the file hashes, time/date of submission, and a cursory behavioral analysis to prove that I indeed submitted malware files. The fact that I have the URLs would also prove that Comodo received my samples, but not know who submitted them.

Melih showed up tonight to assassinate my character and accuse me of being a troll. But he has not squeaked even once about my challenge, or acknowledge it in any way, even though he was quite vocal earlier about demanding evidence from me. Well, here's his opportunity to get what he wanted so badly. I'm willing to take the steps required on my end as soon as he does the same. Why he hasn't responded to my challenge is anyone's guess.

Offline LeoniAquila

  • Retired moderator
  • Comodo's Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 6745
Re: CAV3 detection rate test [2008.10.05] - 10.26%
« Reply #233 on: October 06, 2008, 01:24:20 PM »
That's it, thread locked. If anyone wish to continue CAVS testing, please do so in a new thread. This isn't leading anywhere, anymore.

solcroft, as much as you haven't received the answers you are looking for, I request you to stop the non-constructive and insulting posting style. This is the second and last time I'm warning you (in this particular thread).

LA

 

Seo4Smf 2.0 © SmfMod.Com | Smf Destek