Comodo may not recognize these tests…but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t. Although not totally accurate, they can still be an insight. I certainly wouldn’t choose Norton over McAfee just if Norton got 98.99% on some test and McAfee 98.98%.
But if Norton got 98.99% and BesterestAntijunk got 12% … I would have a higher opinion of Norton than BesterestAntijunk.
I do not feel like Jaki is “bashing”.
I’m not sure how this was meant…but AMTSO is not the one who decides if a test is absolutely wonderful or worthless.
Hey…languy’s reviews are not “approved” by AMTSO, but I enjoy them, and feel like I gain from them.
Worthless, in terms of its importance. The AMTSO review board must review the test in order for the testing organization to get the AMTSO nod or seal of approval, sort of. Please do not believe me, believe Melih. He is the one who brought that fact to my attention. What can I say, he was right.
IMHO, this has highlighted a serious flaw in the AMTSO process.
If AMTSO was set up to produce guidelines on how to dynamically test antimalware products in a real-world environment, they should have included the condition that the testing organisation should have to submit their testing process to AMTSO for review and certification PRIOR to running the test and announcing results.
Membership in an organisation does not guarantee conformity to the published principles and intent of said organisation. Review and certification are essential in safeguarding the integrity of any results.
No. But then again, they’re not claiming to be AMTSO compliant. This is a detection test with the added ding-■■■■ of termination protection testing (which all tests should do BTW, IMHO, OK ;)).
Current AV testing methods and AMTSO testing methods are apples and oranges - it’s hard to draw a comparison between them. One starts from a position of “assumed dirty” and the other start from a position of “assumed clean”.
So if they are not claiming to be AMTSO compliant it is even worst that I thought. Show me an AMTSO review board approved test as well as Westcoast and ICSA labs certifications, then and only then I would say nice result. These kind of tests like this one being discussed are just meaningless, pointless, worthless, useless, rubbish, you name it, I cannot find enough epithets to describe it, well to me at least.
AMTSO is the bread and butter of testing, when I reminisce your apple and oranges allegory, period. ;D
so even missing 1 is not acceptable if you want protection!
That is why I use CIS. To get the strongest proactive protection, that can block any threat, known or unknown.
So, is this test uninteresting, if D+ an FW can block everything, why care about AV? Obviously reactive protection can not be as strong as proactive, and CIS would not need the AV part to protect. But CIS has AV, and that will be more useful the more it detects, making CIS easier to use. When I started to use CIS (3.5 beta 2), the AV really was not very good. But it is a lot better now, and MRG shows it:
Very much so… the AV component is just making D+ more usable. I think we can all agree that CIS now is a lot quiter than it was before. And like you rightly said, it won’t stop there… it will continue and with v4 it will be the product that can be used by the most novice computer users.
An AV will always be a critical part of an Internet Security package. Novice users will not be able to make the correct decisions about whether to allow or deny. Also, even expert users sometimes make mistakes.
Comodo most definitely needs a strong AV as well because CIS has the possibility to consider the computer clean, Clean PC mode. So less experienced people starting to use CIS need to be sure that the scan during installation does a thorough job. Melih realises this:
But to get a real idea about the protection capabilities of HIPS based firewall solutions like CIS there are of course different ways of testing required. Its neither black nor white.