Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Adrian Ścibor" data-source="post: 1083619" data-attributes="member: 71496">Even I wonder why QH&#039;s result so pooooor compared to AVLab&#039; testing method. For me personally, the AV-C methodoology is unknown under the hood, so I can speak only for myself and AVLab&#039; team. Maybe there are differences between malware delivery method or real/unrealistic protocol delivery into the system? Or maybe the samples are not so malicious if QH engine pass throuth without block some of them, I do not know...I don&#039;t want anyone to take my opinion the wrong way, but one thing is for sure, most of the vendors we test, stay with us for longer, despite the sometimes not always 100% result. Why? I believe and they too, they have the benefit of this because we show them where the problem of a bad result might be: addons, engine, logs, unexpected behaviour. Of course, it is good that we have more opinions about the software thanks to AV-C.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Adrian Ścibor, post: 1083619, member: 71496"] Even I wonder why QH's result so pooooor compared to AVLab' testing method. For me personally, the AV-C methodoology is unknown under the hood, so I can speak only for myself and AVLab' team. Maybe there are differences between malware delivery method or real/unrealistic protocol delivery into the system? Or maybe the samples are not so malicious if QH engine pass throuth without block some of them, I do not know... I don't want anyone to take my opinion the wrong way, but one thing is for sure, most of the vendors we test, stay with us for longer, despite the sometimes not always 100% result. Why? I believe and they too, they have the benefit of this because we show them where the problem of a bad result might be: addons, engine, logs, unexpected behaviour. Of course, it is good that we have more opinions about the software thanks to AV-C. [/QUOTE]

Verification