Umbra Corp. said:
Any protection test should not include the users ability, just the solution performance against threats.
Now if they want see how a solution performs when used by basic users, the test should be different and not called "detection, protection,etc..."
it is why all those tests are biased to me, not saying the financial transactions that may get involved...
In that case UAC would get 100% on all testing sites and Microsoft would be #1.
Of coarse many users don't know how to UAC properly and will just click approve which will fail them. See the importance of including all aspects in AV test?
This would also apply to all HIPS, sandboxing and virtualization as well but what does that mean to most users who don't understand how to use them?
I do agree that even though AV testing test against most aspects their results really don't help a user to decide what is best for them and some testing sites are biased and influenced by money.
I have customers that use various AV products (MSE, Avast, AVG, Avira, Norton, McAfee, BitDefender, etc.) and what I have found that it doesn't really apply to any certain product which one gives the user the best protection, the main protection applies to the user actions.
User who don't use precautions will always get infections no matter what product they use. Many users who do take precautions and MSE never get infections. That is why I believe just about any AV can protect a user who uses precautions, for those who don't use precautions there is no hope for them no matter what product they use. That is why I believe AV tests are irrelevant. Nothing will give these users 100% protection. I have had customers bring in their systems with AV's installed and updated with the highest protection scores on AV testing sites loaded full of malware.
Thanks.