A new anti-virus test paid for by nortan gave themselfs a perfect score!!

[Guest]

[Endymion]

Not on your Nelly!!
A definition of "a ant" could take up"The Library Of Alexandria" with you.

How unexpected! Now it looks that among those questing for answers you also carry a good definition for slander  though ATM you are Not willing to post such wisdom in The Everything Is Off-Topic Thread  (maybe neither in The Library Of Alexandria you appear to know along with said insanity).

Whenever you might similarly represent a good definition of ant and are eventually willing to share it with everybody the OT thread remain an appropriate place to collect that and other OT definitions at your convenience, though it appears here that you felt the need to stress your intentions building on your Nelly  

[metalforlife]

Since you've been the only one providing a representation of peril I wonder if your strenuous efforts of refutation might me triggered  by you perception of AMTSO as a peril for the supposedly endangered aspects you described and that I summarized in my previous post.

Okay, in relation to the whole AV industry, that is what I meant.  But, to narrow it down to what COMODO feels, it is the AMTSO-believers who think that non-AMTSO tests are "dangerous". I don't think that I have ever said that an organization such as AMTSO should not exist, instead I say that it just shouldn't indirectly attempt to dictate (not literally) to the all testers on the subject of "AV testing".

It wouldn't really appear a matter of testing anymore as I gather you wish for test as a mere container to express the tester's "ideology" without regard for anything else.

Though it would be seemingly possible to replicate your arguments to any field of scientific research it would be unlikely to revert them back to the state you're wishing for AV tests.

Again, you haven't quite understood me. Where have I ever said anything that is equivalent to "AV testing exists for one and only purpose - the intriguing ideologies behind the testing methodologies" - that would be insane, seriously.

Aren't there different different ways to catch malware? Don't AV vendors promote their own products as being unique and special from all others'? Don't we, the users, know that we differentiate malware products based on numerous detection techniques? So, what is wrong if one test measures the leak-prevention prowess of firewalls, and another measures the detection power of AVs in catching static malware, while the third one is about dynamic capabilities? That is basically what I said when I said "different ideologies for testing".

I understood you point is that everybody ought to decide the value of something. Why it should works in an one-sided way?

This was a statement directed towards COMODO for considering non-AMTSO tests as "weak". Whereas I have never said that COMODO should submit CAV ONLY to non-AMTSO tests.

My opinion is, until AMTSO tests arrive, why not, just for the sake of testing, enter CAV into these "weaker" tests?

To Kyle: I believe I was at least slightly less incoherent there, or should I say - incoherently less incoherent, if that makes sense... again.

[Endymion]

But, to narrow it down to what COMODO feels, it is the AMTSO-believers who think that non-AMTSO tests are "dangerous".

metalforlife I read you definitions about AV testing as you meant them in many posts although it it might be that you comments were also meant to state your conjectures about COMODO

I say that it just shouldn't indirectly attempt to dictate (not literally) to the all testers on the subject of "AV testing".

Nevertheless it's up to each independent testing organization to choose to affiliate themselves with AMTSO or not. Wouldn't you agree?

Where have I ever said anything that is equivalent to "AV testing exists for one and only purpose - the intriguing ideologies behind the testing methodologies

Personally, I would prefer to see tests of different kinds, based on different ideologies, measuring different capabilities, and portraying different aspects of an AV's capacity.

Did you mean methodologies meant to measure different capabilities?

I don't think that I have ever said that an organization such as AMTSO should not exist

Do we really need an intermediary organization to act as the representative of the opinions of a myriad of views?

Then did you assume also that there could be "myriad of views" about how to measure the same capability?

it is clearly impossible to maintain a consistency in the testing conditions, as varying factors that determine the results are different quantitative measures for each AV being tested.

...whereas that AMTSO and the myriad of organization affiliated with it would be seemingly able to converge on a shared and consistent view/s and thus also provide a way to measure the same capability consistently between different testers whenever they see to fulfill that possibility?

I don't pay much attention to vendor-paid tests.

My opinion is, until AMTSO tests arrive, why not, just for the sake of testing, enter CAV into these "weaker" tests?

If that was you opinion then  it appears you neglect tests already available for some unclear reason (as those were not vendor-paid tests).

[LaserWraith]

Since both of you seem to enjoy throwing huge long blocks of text at each other ( ), and it seems like a winner is nowhere in sight, maybe a draw? 

[metalforlife]

I realized three posts through our exchange that our discussion is of no value. And a few more exchanges later, I stick with that opinion. Maybe deep within my soul, that is what I was yearning for, a long, pointless discussion.

Anyway, as a an end to pointlessness, let my conclude this with a pointless question - what does CIS say?   

[LaserWraith]

Funny...I tried to read through that again and I still don't know what was being talked about. 

[Tags:]