Familiar scenario, Kevin?

Somebody else with doubts about AM testing:

Peter.

Interesting article.

They don’t mention the possibility that good reviews may be bought, do they? :wink:

Like this section referring to alternative methods of protection (such as HIPS)…

Are any of these blocking techniques included in the evaluation or detection comparisons? No. Isn't it more important how secure the product keeps the user rather then just simply how many samples from a tainted, untested, unvalidated, out-of-date and highly dubious boxed set are detected?

The public is getting a VERY corrupt and biased view that doesn’t relate even remotely to the real world level of malware protection.

That’s been the point about CAVS, too. Its file-scanning detection rate is low compared to some other AVs, but if you were to actually test it with the HIPS active, the file-scanning becomes a moot point and the protection level shoots up to the top…

LM

Funny how so many of the comments call the article FUD.
Surrounded by the shills of the AV industry.