Forums
New posts
Search forums
News
Security News
Technology News
Giveaways
Giveaways, Promotions and Contests
Discounts & Deals
Reviews
Users Reviews
Video Reviews
Support
Windows Malware Removal Help & Support
Inactive Support Threads
Mac Malware Removal Help & Support
Mobile Malware Removal Help & Support
Blog
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Reply to thread
Menu
Install the app
Install
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
Security
Security Statistics and Reports
Summary of the March edition of tests on virus samples from the Internet
Message
<blockquote data-quote="itman71" data-source="post: 986461" data-attributes="member: 83966"><p>Since AVLab testing enhancements are being discussed here, I'll add my comments.</p><p></p><p>Eset offers two consumer suite versions, Internet Security and Smart Security Premium. The later which was tested by AVLab is the product offering cloud scanning capability that Eset advertises will protect you against 0-day malware. Also. the cost of ESSP is significantly higher than EIS. The problem is how does a consumer validate that ESSP cloud scanning is effective as claimed? I also assume this same situation exists with other AV vendors product offerings.</p><p></p><p>I therefore propose another test level be added. That is a test performed with the test server Internet connection disabled. This test would parallel the periodic Malware Protection test performed by A-V Comparatives. Obviously, the test with the Internet connection disabled would be performed first to prevent any cloud scanning detection's influencing its detection rates. Finally, it is imperative that malware test samples are representative of what the vendor claims to detect in its cloud scanner. In Eset's case that would be anything downloaded via browser or e-mail. Also, the samples should include executable's, scripts, etc..</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="itman71, post: 986461, member: 83966"] Since AVLab testing enhancements are being discussed here, I'll add my comments. Eset offers two consumer suite versions, Internet Security and Smart Security Premium. The later which was tested by AVLab is the product offering cloud scanning capability that Eset advertises will protect you against 0-day malware. Also. the cost of ESSP is significantly higher than EIS. The problem is how does a consumer validate that ESSP cloud scanning is effective as claimed? I also assume this same situation exists with other AV vendors product offerings. I therefore propose another test level be added. That is a test performed with the test server Internet connection disabled. This test would parallel the periodic Malware Protection test performed by A-V Comparatives. Obviously, the test with the Internet connection disabled would be performed first to prevent any cloud scanning detection's influencing its detection rates. Finally, it is imperative that malware test samples are representative of what the vendor claims to detect in its cloud scanner. In Eset's case that would be anything downloaded via browser or e-mail. Also, the samples should include executable's, scripts, etc.. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Top