AV‐Comparatives, AV‐TEST and Virus Bulletin comment on allegations of inappropriate behavior

[Dima007]

SAN FRANCISCO, April 24, 2015 /PRNewswire/ -- Qihoo 360 (NYSE: QIHU), a leading Internet company has showcased its product line up during RSA Conference 2015, celebrated during this week in San Francisco.

The company has been introducing its flagship product 360 Total Security, a free comprehensive solution that addresses all security needs of a computer user. The product capabilities go beyond the features of an antivirus and provide a unified solution for PC security and utility. Its array of built-in utilities to optimise the PC, such as the performance enhancer, startup booster and the system clean up utility, lighten the user's computer as if it was new. Qihoo 360 has also presented its brand new product, 360 Total Security Essential, a lighter version of 360 Total Security, designed for those users uniquely focused on security.

On the mobile side, the company showcased 360 Security, an all-in-one utility app for android devices that provides free, all-around protection of mobile lifestyles with features that eradicate viruses, speed up device performance, thoroughly clean junk files, among others. Trusted by 640 million users, 360 Security has reached the Top 5 on Google Play in 79 countries and became the sixth most downloaded Google Play app in the world, as reported by App Annie's latest index.

Qihoo's security product family for PC and Mobile is armed with awarded technologies that serve over more than 1 billion users worldwide.

"I believe Qihoo 360, with it's flagship software products -- 360 Total Security for personal computer and 360 Security for Android-based mobile devices -- has huge market potential in the United States, not only because they are free of charge but also for its best quality," said Qi Xiangdong, President of the company.

During RSA Conference, Qihoo 360 has received an award from AV-Test, an important independent antivirus testing association. Qi Xiangdong, President of the company, received the award for Best Android Mobile Product 2014, delivered by Andreas Marx, CEO of the test organisation. The same day, Qi also met with AV-Comparatives CEO, and both shared their visions on security testing methodologies and relevance of the contribution of security companies to these procedures.

SOURCE Qihoo 360 Technology Co. Ltd: http://www.prnewswire.com/news-rele...erseas-leading-products-at-rsa-300071613.html

 

[jamescv7]

If I'm not mistaken Qihoo default settings makes Bitdefender and Avira engine is disabled but those independent testing labs should double check if the products meets the possible methodology or configure the product to ensure everything are on as possible.

Also a lesson from conducting test is use the product that available in the website so everything should be fair.

 

[jamescv7]

The AV company who will prove to be guilty should undergone basic homework IT ethics and realize why cheating/corruption happened to evolve in large scale through its minor mistake they encounter everyday.

The distrust makes it really a downfall for a longer time effect which the incident happen from Iobit controversy fate but different situation,

 

[hjlbx]

The AV company who will prove to be guilty should undergone basic homework IT ethics and realize why cheating/corruption happened to evolve in large scale through its minor mistake they encounter everyday.

The distrust makes it really a downfall for a longer time effect which the incident happen from Iobit controversy fate but different situation,

In Chinese culture this sort of thing is not considered unethical...

 

[Janl92l]

Now Qihoo have 2 Version for 360 TSE,lol. one only 24 mb download the other "Enhanced" version 180 mb with bitdefender enabled default.

http://www.360totalsecurity.com/features/360-total-security-essential/

 

[aztony]

In Chinese culture this sort of thing is not considered unethical...

The Chinese market is very cutthroat. Anything goes to best/beat a competitor. A few weeks ago I was conversing with a member of the Wilders forum who lives in China. He told me that in China when a user goes to download a particular antivirus app the download portal can, and often does, download competing AVs in addition to the one the user is after. Not only that, but the interlopers are designed to auto install, and upon doing so shut down the resident AV. Then without user input it uninstalls and remove the resident AV from the system. Behold Eck could attest to that.

 

[f1computerexperts]

My warned me about installing Qihoo or any other Chinese antivirus on customers computers. She said they're dirty and you can't trust them. I guess you can't label her racist, but only factual. So now it's on to something else.... Maybe I'll do like the other shops do: install MS Security Essentials. At least I'll have job security! So if you want PROVEN free antivirus without the PUP's ads or dealing with the unethical, Go with bitdefender free. Really, free antivirus does not mean free in almost every case these days.

 

[RmG152]

I told you time ago. Nothing new.

 

[FreddyFreeloader]

aztony, post: 379362, member: 13823"]I wasn't following, Freddy, was it an up day, or down day, on Wall Street?

Edit: I just did a check both the Dow and NASDAQ were down today. Not sure how much to read into Qihoo's stock movement in a down-market. But if the stock continues to slide in a rising/up market that will more concerning.[/QUOTE]
They were down 1.78%. Too early to tell but since this hasn't been in the big media yet, not many people have heard about it.

 

[software182]

Scumbag Qihoo

lol

 

[jackuars]

Interesting how its 2 other Chinese companies that reported Qihoo. Jealousy is a mental cancer. Like someone already said, this is just the result of a cut-throat competition among vendors in the Chinese market.

We already knew that BitDefender wasn't enabled by default. The testing scores shows the outcome of enabling one engine that isn't enabled by default. Infact the whole dilemma is caused just because of the default config which doesn't report cracked softwares as malware's, which in fact we know that it's false positive most of the time. There is no denying that Qihoo isn't at fault. But......

There is no perfect configuration for any software. Even the results that have been displayed on these independent testing companies vary accordingly from one system to another, according to the computer knowledge of the person who uses it, according to the browsing behaviour of individuals, and many other factors. Infact if we go deep down, it's simply the results that has been posted on the independent testing lab sites that contradict against the general protection level of users and the sense of security itself.

This in no way contradict Qihoo's performance that has been performed by our testers here, which has been nothing short of extremely good. Let the AV wars continue.

 

[jackuars]

Im not going to deny it: I've never really liked Qihoo that much. Want to know why? Because I do not think they are very ethical. They have a security product, yet their product is constantly promoted through Adware? It may have nothing to do with them and may not be their fault but I don't see Emsisosft being promoted via Adware? (or am I blind?).

Qihoo doesn't bundle any adware with the product. And comparing Qihoo and Emsisoft is wrong, because one is a freeware product and the other is commercial. To get back the investments for freeware products, is through bundling the product with adware (at times), donations, spreading the word (promotions) and others. Yes Qihoo is at fault for promoting via other products (as you said), but so is CCleaner and Google Chrome which bundle their product or promote via other product through adware. Promotions aren't evil after all.

It's important to note that this isn't "adware" per-se, because the products promoted aren't bad or harmful in any way. The next time I uninstall Qihoo is when another good, totally adware-free (important for AV's), without an upgradable payware version comes out. But I don't think that one is going to come out anytime soon. I hope it does.

 

[Atlas147]

"Qihoo’s own QVM engine, was never enabled"
I'm curious, is it possible for a normal user to disable this engine? Cause I seem to recall some people saying it can't be disabled.

You're right, a normal user would not be able to disable the QVM engine because there isn't an option to do so, therefore the whole product that qihoo sent in is completely different from the product that is given to the public

 

[Janl92l]

Qihoo doesn't bundle any adware with the product. And comparing Qihoo and Emsisoft is wrong, because one is a freeware product and the other is commercial. To get back the investments for freeware products, is through bundling the product with adware (at times), donations, spreading the word (promotions) and others. Yes Qihoo is at fault for promoting via other products (as you said), but so is CCleaner and Google Chrome which bundle their product or promote via other product through adware. Promotions aren't evil after all.

It's important to note that this isn't "adware" per-se, because the products promoted aren't bad or harmful in any way. The next time I uninstall Qihoo is when another good, totally adware-free (important for AV's), without an upgradable payware version comes out. But I don't think that one is going to come out anytime soon. I hope it does.

Bitdefender free. COMODO is(custom settings). Both have no bloat,popups or whatever and are excellent free avs. so u have not only qihoo.

 

[jackuars]

Like woomera mentioned, I really don't get why make such a huge fuss about it. If the title that I read here was, It's confirmed that Qihoo is stealing all your data, and shoving spyware, I would have even considered switching it.

Qihoo hasn't lied or cheated in the tests. If Qihoo know's that it can engineer it's product to get the best scores in protection that it sent to the testing labs, then any result that you see on these lab results doesn't actually represent the worth of a product. The scores you see for BitDefender, Kaspersky etc, are just inflated scores after all, because it can checkmark all the shortcomings to get a good score at these labs based on the testing methodologies.

Every single time I see that Kaspersky and BitDefender gets 6/6 for Performance, I just go bonkers. This could be because

1. The independent testing labs are publishing fake results for money [ I don't believe that, and never intend to, just wanted to cover a fact]
2. The products are custom created or developed for machines that are used for testing by the independent labs. Which could be the only possible reason.

Which leads us to just the simple conclusion, All Good is Hard, All Bad is Easy, but not an Evil.

 

[jackuars]

Note: I just saw a similar thread, would be good, if both are merged together, else replies just get scattered.

 

[jamescv7]

@hjlbx : Yeah it may not be considered unethical but rather its equivalent on being uneducated or unrespectful from others in competition. These is the reason why China companies called to hide very dark secret tactics and everything are outskirt even good ones.

 

[Deleted member 21043]

Qihoo doesn't bundle any adware with the product. And comparing Qihoo and Emsisoft is wrong, because one is a freeware product and the other is commercial. To get back the investments for freeware products, is through bundling the product with adware (at times), donations, spreading the word (promotions) and others. Yes Qihoo is at fault for promoting via other products (as you said), but so is CCleaner and Google Chrome which bundle their product or promote via other product through adware. Promotions aren't evil after all.

It's important to note that this isn't "adware" per-se, because the products promoted aren't bad or harmful in any way. The next time I uninstall Qihoo is when another good, totally adware-free (important for AV's), without an upgradable payware version comes out. But I don't think that one is going to come out anytime soon. I hope it does.

Never said that Qihoo was bundling Adware:

They have a security product, yet their product is constantly promoted through Adware?

 

[jackuars]

Bitdefender free. COMODO is(custom settings). Both have no bloat,popups or whatever and are excellent free avs. so u have not only qihoo.

Avast(custom settings), AVG(Custom settings) etc, all gives a clean product. But still the installer versions are adware. Which is why I specifically requested about AV's that doesn't bundle any, since they are security companies and I recommend these products to others. BitDefender Free is fine, but it's too simple, and totally like an AI (Artificial Intelligence), which takes away the control from the user.

 

[Nirv5668]

It's a shame certain vendors make a big situation when they could have: come clean previously and admitted what they had done/asked or permission or just not done it in the first place and played it fair to the other vendors. But no, there is always that one vendor (or multiple it seems) who have to ruin things and mess up purposefully at will.

They really should have asked permission or changed their default settings (still don't understand the logic behind this...if these were the best settings, and AVC testing is an accurate reflection of real-world protection, then why don't they use the same settings for both? Its bad for business if users have FPs or get malware).

But, has this document already been edited or was this here before the investigation? Anyway, it looks like others asked permission. I think I have seen it for other vendors as well...trying to find where I read this...

see top of page 5 for full notes on changes from defaults for March 2015 detection test-
http://www.av-comparatives.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/avc_fdt_201503_en.pdf
"Notes: The Chinese vendors Baidu and Qihoo decided to participate with their respective English products, which settings and engines are different than their Chinese language products Qihoo participated with their 360 Antivirus (English)...which uses the Bitdefender engine but no QVM engine..."

There is no indication in the document that this was added after an investigation or edited, that I can see.