Certification Test based on AMTSO Real Time Threat List (RTTL) March 2016

[Av Gurus]

Content source

http://www.av-comparatives.org/certification-tests/

In this section you find Certification Tests using the AMTSO Real Time Threat List (RTTL). The RTTL is a repository of malware samples collected from around the world, and is managed, maintained and secured by the Anti-Malware Testing Standards Organization (AMTSO). Through the RTTL, AMTSO has provided a common platform where testers can access malware samples and related telemetry data provided by vendors and academics. The RTTL provides a way for testers to setup up new ways of testing based on prevalence-weighted and region-specific malware samples.


Using the RTTL extends the range of tests, and certifications based on it allow businesses and consumers to make more informed decisions when selecting a product. Using our Real-World Testing framework we are simulating a user using a computer. By exposing the machine to samples pulled from the RTTL we can give an overview of the core protection capabilities of the security product.

http://www.av-comparatives.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/rttl_cert_201603_en.pdf

 

[Noxx]

Interesting scores by Webroot and Qihoo. Thanks for sharing.

 

[Pat MacKnife]

360 with very low scores, ow my god ... seems in the west is something different, not the same like in china!

 

[Kate_L]

Looks like AV-Comparatives and AV-Test are testing Qihoo again. #doublestandards

 

[Atlas147]

We talk a lot about how Qihoo has very good heuristics but from the results seen here it doesn't show. Even Avira, a AV that almost completely relies on signatures and some cloud has a better score than Qihoo. Not only that but Microsoft Security Essentials has a surprisingly high score as well

 

[Deleted member 178]

Worthless test , and i don't say that because i dislike test labs.

- samples submitted by vendors???!!! come on !!!!
- 253 samples used not even mentioned by AV-C ? shady.... so nobody can replicate the test...

 

[hjlbx]

Signature detection. Ehhrrrmmmm... Scandalous! Ludicrous! Wasting time on this obsolete protection model.

Only because novice\beginner doesn't know any better, not inclined to learn anything other than "press button - scan" and will buy the AV -- and AV makes $$$$$.

Weeks after buying said AV, we find them on MT begging for malware removal assistance.

A sad state of affairs if you ask me...

 

[Deleted member 178]

Weeks after buying said AV, we find them on MT begging for malware removal assistance.

mwahahahahaha !!! you pointed the absolute truth

 

[jamescv7]

Very inconsistent from the test of the users and through them.

Let's take as an example to AhnLab where its detection rates may contrary considering its a mediocre in performance.

+ The samples wasn't mentioned from its origin because sometimes it can be a main issue of being selective.

 

[Rishi]

How can they simulate a user using the machine, I mean sure they can put a bot doing the clicking and typing but knowledge, experience and safe habits is something which cannot be emulated or has statistical averages. An informed user can stay safe using any product, while the opposite might be true for beginners. So the 100% or 86% does not really matter in that case. This, plus the unidimensional testing is scary.