Real-World Protection Test February 2018
- Thread starter amico81
- Start date
Microsoft and COMODO do not participate for one reason or another. You would have to ask Microsoft and COMODO.
Virus Bulletin's VB100 is a PAID certification program. vbtest@virusbulletin.com
When you have such questions about an organization, just ask that organization directly.
Last edited by a moderator:
- Sep 22, 2014
- 1,767
- Sep 3, 2017
- 825
Why don't we have other vendors in VB list who are listed as top performers by AV-C :notworthy: (For years)- McAfee Avira ...one thing that question me is why ESET doesn't take part in RAP tests by Virus Bulletin ? He gets VB certify for no Fp's ok acceptable...but no RAP test!
Funny that the 2 users lobbying for VB (regardless of AVC's quality or lack thereof) have the same favorite AV that ONLY performs particularly well on VB. According to you, companies pay AVC to get their AVs tested, and whoever pays more gets better results, but you refuse to use the same logic for VB, which is also a paid test as @Lockdown said. 
- Feb 24, 2017
- 1,661
if you're pointing at GData users, link me an other test where GData is tested.Funny that the 2 users lobbying for VB (regardless of AVC's quality or lack thereof) have the same favorite AV that ONLY performs particularly well on VB. According to you, companies pay AVC to get their AVs tested, and whoever pays more gets better results, but you refuse to use the same logic for VB, which is also a paid test as @Lockdown said.
we don't lobby for any tests, they're all bs, and shouldn't be taken seriously, but when some test has Panda on 100% for centuries, you start questioning it.
VB's tests seem to be on par with our personal experiences, not like the other tests.
- Sep 3, 2017
- 825
First hirFunny that the 2 users lobbying for VB (regardless of AVC's quality or lack thereof) have the same favorite AV that ONLY performs particularly well on VB. According to you, companies pay AVC to get their AVs tested, and whoever pays more gets better results, but you refuse to use the same logic for VB, which is also a paid test as @Lockdown said.
Every test is a paid similar to how we pay for av suites...but the thing is VB guys atleast don't rest while tests go on..and their results have 90% genuinity with MT hub results as well..tests are not static but also dynamic (RAP)...Even mrg effitas is paid test...If an AV has an ability it would easily clear any of these tests...Few vendors that Av-C host as TOP literally don even a single RAP certify from VB...That gives the ans and I think no need to specify their namesFunny that the 2 users lobbying for VB (regardless of AVC's quality or lack thereof) have the same favorite AV that ONLY performs particularly well on VB. According to you, companies pay AVC to get their AVs tested, and whoever pays more gets better results, but you refuse to use the same logic for VB, which is also a paid test as @Lockdown said.
- Sep 3, 2017
- 825
First hir
Every test is a paid similar to how we pay for av suites...but the thing is VB guys atleast don't rest while tests go on..and their results have 90% genuinity with MT hub results as well..tests are not static but also dynamic (RAP)...Even mrg effitas is paid test...If an AV has an ability it would easily clear any of these tests...Few vendors that Av-C host as TOP literally don even have a single RAP certify from VB...That gives the ans and I think no need to specify their names
- Jan 10, 2017
- 1,061
Funny that the 2 users lobbying for VB (regardless of AVC's quality or lack thereof) have the same favorite AV that ONLY performs particularly well on VB. According to you, companies pay AVC to get their AVs tested, and whoever pays more gets better results, but you refuse to use the same logic for VB, which is also a paid test as @Lockdown said.
you should take a close look @ the results of our malwarehub. then you will see the truth
thats one reason why I love this forum. here are not the agressive fanboys...but we all can talk on a high level of knowledge
That is partnership for the Virus Bulletin :: VB2018 and not participation in VB100 testing.
Like I initially stated, ask COMODO and Microsoft why they do not participate in VB100 testing.
You can also ask GDATA why they choose not to participate in AV-Comparatives testing.
Please I am begging you, can you at-least write a proper sentence so I can read what you are saying properly. You don't have to put "..." in between every single sentence you write 24/7, it's difficult to follow what you are saying when you do this. No hostility here, but without all the constant "..." your posts may be read and interpreted more towards your aim, to prevent misunderstandings/confusion.Every test is a paid similar to how we pay for av suites...but the thing is VB guys atleast don't rest while tests go on..and their results have 90% genuinity with MT hub results as well..tests are not static but also dynamic (RAP)...Even mrg effitas is paid test...If an AV has an ability it would easily clear any of these tests...Few vendors that Av-C host as TOP literally don even a single RAP certify from VB...That gives the ans and I think no need to specify their names
I don't know about AV-Comparatives but VirusBulletin actually test for free (or have for people I speak with), but only charge for tests to be published publicly. I specifically asked someone I knew the other day about this and they told me that VirusBulletin tested their product for them for free and provided feedback to help them, no charges unless public publishing was wanted.Funny that the 2 users lobbying for VB (regardless of AVC's quality or lack thereof) have the same favorite AV that ONLY performs particularly well on VB. According to you, companies pay AVC to get their AVs tested, and whoever pays more gets better results, but you refuse to use the same logic for VB, which is also a paid test as @Lockdown said.
I don't agree with the opinion of people saying that vendors pay more for better test results though, that would be stupid and if it was true, not as many vendors would participate in it. AV-Comparatives cost money because that is their JOB, their employees need to be paid somehow... Not because they are bribed to fake results.
Whether the testing methodology is good or bad or whether test results match those in a custom malware hub or personal testing is another matter. AV-C test with whatever their methodology is and show the results back on vendors which participated... That is it. They don't tell you that the detection rates in their testing will always be for the real-world, this is impossible because detection varies on a daily basis and depends on numerous factors (e.g. samples tested with, origin of the samples, age of the samples, behavior of the samples, etc.). It even says on their PDFs to take it with a grain of salt AFAIK.
God damn it's just a test why does there have to be so much fuss over it. It's like one testing vendor does more or less the same thing and it's all okay, another does it and they get shredded to bits. Who cares? Don't like it then don't care for it!
You can spend months testing a single product with a variety of techniques. A week later it could become obsolete and meaningless depending on how the malware market has since evolved and updates to the code-base in the security software package to adapt to prevalent threats... Signature database cleaning, BB logic changes, network rules, etc.
Last edited by a moderator:
Microsoft also use other technologies, look it up.
All the fanboys and haters love trolling over these results. It happens on EVERY single AV Comparison Test results by AVC/AVT/MRG etc. - ever posted here and other forums and social media.
It's a good reason to not comment on these types of topics.
- Feb 19, 2018
- 182
Similar threads
