Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Adrian Ścibor" data-source="post: 1065438" data-attributes="member: 71496">Man, you are doing an excellent job with this table and an entire summary, keep it up <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite109" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" />You had in mind we cheat the users? Keep in mind we must comply to hard technical details and rules of AMTSO, everything has to be transparent in the background between AMTSO, Vendors and labs. If you wish, we can share a database dump of the test, so you can check the results yourself. We use in the test a random, unique files (by SHA256) and real live URLs with potential malicious files. Currently, some of them (7-10%) is a 0-day file (according to the mks vir engine - see at the CSV malware table and search &quot;RoundKick&quot;, it means non-signature detection). &quot;Based on several recent editions of security tests, we have come to the conclusion that solutions with multi-layered protection are the key to achieving the best results in protection against malware.&quot; - you can read in the newest summary. This is a discussion of AV-C result. They have different methodology, evaluation, samples used in the test and everything else in the background. If you wish, please consider to contact with us. We can include some of your malware set into the test (you have to use a URL to share [IP / domain]) and compare the result with included vendors. Only you and we will know about these SHA256s, so we can disclose these results to the MalwareTips community at the end. Of course, such a sample has to go through several stages to qualify to the test, but it is just like any other sample (have a look at an enclosed image).</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Adrian Ścibor, post: 1065438, member: 71496"] Man, you are doing an excellent job with this table and an entire summary, keep it up :) You had in mind we cheat the users? Keep in mind we must comply to hard technical details and rules of AMTSO, everything has to be transparent in the background between AMTSO, Vendors and labs. If you wish, we can share a database dump of the test, so you can check the results yourself. We use in the test a random, unique files (by SHA256) and real live URLs with potential malicious files. Currently, some of them (7-10%) is a 0-day file (according to the mks vir engine - see at the CSV malware table and search "RoundKick", it means non-signature detection). "Based on several recent editions of security tests, we have come to the conclusion that solutions with multi-layered protection are the key to achieving the best results in protection against malware." - you can read in the newest summary. This is a discussion of AV-C result. They have different methodology, evaluation, samples used in the test and everything else in the background. If you wish, please consider to contact with us. We can include some of your malware set into the test (you have to use a URL to share [IP / domain]) and compare the result with included vendors. Only you and we will know about these SHA256s, so we can disclose these results to the MalwareTips community at the end. Of course, such a sample has to go through several stages to qualify to the test, but it is just like any other sample (have a look at an enclosed image). [/QUOTE]

Verification