Qihoo withdraws from AV-C: Traditional Anti-virus Evaluation Criteria Far Behind

[aztony]

Recently, the world’s three most famous authoritative antivirus software testing organization AV-Comparatives, AV-TEST and Virus Bulletin issued a joint statement on Thursday unanimously dismissed all certification and rating Qihoo 360 products this year to obtain, that the presence of its products cheating .

The reason is that Qihoo 360 submitted to the testing agency for comparison and certification testing of products and the company’s products to users and customers have significant differences in behavior.

Recently foreign anti-virus testing organization AV-C combined with AV-TEST, VB100 claimed that 360 anti-virus evaluation versions of the engine settings and domestic ordinary user version, canceled 360 reviews Awards in 2015. In this regard we believe that the traditional antivirus method AV-C test has been far behind the cloud security of the times, the two sides can not agree on evaluation criteria, 360 decided to withdraw from AV-C reviews, and hereby declare:

http://www.hihuadu.com/2015/05/02/3...i-virus-evaluation-criteria-behind-20812.html

 

[Enju]

Quite funny tbh
First AV-Comparatives uncover their bull and kick them out of the tests and now they claim that they are withdrawing.
A company full of lies, but oh well their fanboys will still defend them and spam the forums about how amazing it is, because it is free and has a "great" detection rate (but only if other vendors detect it on VT...).

 

[aztony]

Quite funny tbh
First AV-Comparatives uncover their bull and kick them out of the tests and now they claim that they are withdrawing.
A company full of lies, but oh well their fanboys will still defend them and spam the forums about how amazing it is, because it is free and has a "great" detection rate (but only if other vendors detect it on VT...).

I heard another user who lives in China say, that before this scandal Qihoo lavished praise upon AV-C and used them in their advertisements. Now it seems odd that all of a sudden AV-C is behind the curve, and outdated.

 

[Sr. Normal]

@Enju , we, fanboys are hurt and divided. I belong to the group of seeking alternatives , others will follow with more or less confidence .

I 've always supported them and I have defended them of unwarranted criticism . Current criticism is , for me, amply justified and therefore " defected " . But still I understand that there are people who want to give their trust again. Have they made cheated ?, yes , but here in MT , several colleagues have done tests of this AV and always given excellent results, in fact it get the best results.

Qihoo has been the best free AV I used , but I do them a "boycott" because I am contrary to their business "ethics"

 

[Enju]

I heard another user who lives in China say, that before this scandal Qihoo lavished praise upon AV-C and used them in their advertisements. Now it seems odd that all of a sudden AV-C is behind the curve, and outdated.

They indeed did, they even put the AVC logo on their homepage, but now after their fraud got uncovered by AVC, their testing methods are outdated, even though almost every testing company uses the same techniques .
@Sr. Normal
Qihoo just uses VT for their "magic QVM engine"
https://www.virustotal.com/en/file/...d0e9c9c4df963037a9e7a18828f5d4233d3/analysis/ This is a harmless text file which used a FP in Kasperskys Shellbot signature and was never released in the wild, but still Qihoo and some others started detecting it... (this was posted on Rokop Security).

 

[Malware1]

A company full of lies, but oh well their fanboys will still defend them and spam the forums about how amazing it is, because it is free and has a "great" detection rate (but only if other vendors detect it on VT...).

This is not true.
Did you ever use Qihoo 360?
It can detect many samples undetected by other vendors.

They indeed did, they even put the AVC logo on their homepage, but now after their fraud got uncovered by AVC, their testing methods are outdated, even though almost every testing company uses the same techniques .
@Sr. Normal
Qihoo just uses VT for their "magic QVM engine"
https://www.virustotal.com/en/file/...d0e9c9c4df963037a9e7a18828f5d4233d3/analysis/ This is a harmless text file which used a FP in Kasperskys Shellbot signature and was never released in the wild, but still Qihoo and some others started detecting it... (this was posted on Rokop Security).

Yes, it's true.
Almost each company copies detections from others, but you can't say that Qihoo detects only files detected by others.

 

[aztony]

Qihoo just uses VT for their "magic QVM engine"
https://www.virustotal.com/en/file/...d0e9c9c4df963037a9e7a18828f5d4233d3/analysis/ This is a harmless text file which used a FP in Kasperskys Shellbot signature and was never released in the wild, but still Qihoo and some others started detecting it... (this was posted on Rokop Security).

Didn't know that 'til today. Nice bit of info.

 

[Enju]

This is not true.
Did you ever use Qihoo 360?
It can detect many samples undetected by other vendors.

Yes, it's true.
Almost each company copies detections from others, but you can't say that Qihoo detects only files detected by others.

Yes I've tested Qihoo quite a lot and I've only seen it twice detecting malware which was undetected by others (about 200 samples or so) but not by their "QVM". Secondly I didn't say it only detects files known by other engines so please refrain from putting words in my mouth.

 

[Cch123]

I do not think Qihoo just copies detections. There are times when I checked and Qihoo was the only one that detected the malware, and yes, I have seen a number of FP with their QVM engine when others do not have a detection.

 

[Malware1]

Secondly I didn't say it only detects files known by other engines so please refrain from putting words in my mouth.

See:

Quite funny tbh
First AV-Comparatives uncover their bull and kick them out of the tests and now they claim that they are withdrawing.
A company full of lies, but oh well their fanboys will still defend them and spam the forums about how amazing it is, because it is free and has a "great" detection rate (but only if other vendors detect it on VT...).

 

[Enju]

See:

Reading comprehension 101: I didn't explicitly say they are only detecting malware known to other vendors, BUT most of their detections and therefore their great detection comes from VT. So yeah, next time my posts will be easier to read so everybody, even with basic english skills, can and will understand them.

 

[Malware1]

Reading comprehension 101: I didn't explicitly say they are only detecting malware known to other vendors, BUT most of their detections and therefore their great detection comes from VT. So yeah, next time my posts will be easier to read so everybody, even with basic english skills, can and will understand them.

That's not true.
Qihoo makes many FPs, even if other vendors don't detect the file.
It also detects many files before they're uploaded to VT.
But let's end this

 

[FleischmannTV]

It also detects many files before they're uploaded to VT.

@Malware1

Thank you for your valuable insights. I didn't know this until now.

 

[darko999]

I don't trust AV-Comparatives neither Quihoo.

 

[MikeV]

Personally i don't care if a product uses virus total or other, as long as it protect the system.
This is what an average user wants from a security software...To protect the system.
And there are tons of youtube reviews that proves exactly this.
Reviews from AV Comparatives and other ''independent'' labs are misleading, everybody knows that.

So my answer to all these comments about ''Qihoo steals your data'', ''Qihoo copy detection from Virus total'' etc etc etc.....is:
SO WHAT? ALL I NEED IS MY SYSTEM CLEAN FROM VIRUSES
Qihoo steal my data? And google doesn't? Microsoft doesn't? Facebook doesn't?.......SO WHAT?
Qihoo uses virus total to have great detection? Is my computer clean from viruses? SO WHAT?

and i would like to make clear that I am not a fanboy of any vendor and i don't use Qihoo software now.

 

[Av Gurus]

Everyone must decide for themselves what is important to him.
Security yes, but at what cost?

 

[akuigla]

Personally i don't care if a product uses virus total or other, as long as it protect the system.
This is what an average user wants from a security software...To protect the system.
And there are tons of youtube reviews that proves exactly this.
Reviews from AV Comparatives and other ''independent'' labs are misleading, everybody knows that.

So my answer to all these comments about ''Qihoo steals your data'', ''Qihoo copy detection from Virus total'' etc etc etc.....is:
SO WHAT? ALL I NEED IS MY SYSTEM CLEAN FROM VIRUSES
Qihoo steal my data? And google doesn't? Microsoft doesn't? Facebook doesn't?.......SO WHAT?
Qihoo uses virus total to have great detection? Is my computer clean from viruses? SO WHAT?

and i would like to make clear that I am not a fanboy of any vendor and i don't use Qihoo software now.

Excellent!
I couldn't say it better!

 

[aztony]

Reviews from AV Comparatives and other ''independent'' labs are misleading, everybody knows that.

Not everybody. There are a countless users out there whose primary source, if not sole source, for test data when choosing an AV are those lab tests/reviews.

 

[hjlbx]

I don't agree with Qihoo's managerial decisions, but Qihoo products are still solid, respectable security softs.

 

[Jimmy HendriX]

@Enju , we, fanboys are hurt and divided. I belong to the group of seeking alternatives , others will follow with more or less confidence .

I 've always supported them and I have defended them of unwarranted criticism . Current criticism is , for me, amply justified and therefore " defected " . But still I understand that there are people who want to give their trust again. Have they made cheated ?, yes , but here in MT , several colleagues have done tests of this AV and always given excellent results, in fact it get the best results.

Qihoo has been the best free AV I used , but I do them a "boycott" because I am contrary to their business "ethics"

You're right Sr. Normal