Simply the insufficient methods are raised for the test where errors are prone, traditional methods without experimentation of other concepts to make sure the product performs consistent or not and many others.
Sometimes that paperwork can be easily tampered without any basis + the reputation of a well known organization is bound for such allegations.
Nevertheless real world test that conducts by ordinary users are far better as we can see the overall strong points of then products.
Kaspersky, Avira, Bitdefender and few others may coincidentally consistent due to common test but who knows?
You can see the strong points of a product from an ordernary user test? This makes little sense to me considering they are using malware databases that have a high chance of being on most of the better antivirus' signatures.
While
I could be wrong I also think that the malware used from a lot of databases are not as well designed for bypassing antivirus software.
Antiviruses should NOT get tested against regular malware. Antivirus software is supposed to protect organisations, businesses, corperations, enterprises.
This means antivirus software needs to protect users from targetted attacks and advanced zero day threats and APTs (advanced persistant threats).
This is why security professionals get paid so much, because antiviruses cannot handle the threats out there today.
antivirus software blocks about 20% of the malware out there, considering that the other 80% are more advanced threats. This means that antiviruses need to be tested against more advanced methods.
Antiviruses need to be tested against basic and advanced methods of bypassing and exploiting the system.
- Firewall's should be tested against remote exploitation attempts over both WAN and LAN.
- Antivirus software should survive, at a minimum a KILL5 test.
- Antivirus software needs to block a keylogger to be somewhat successful in my book
- Antivirus software defense systems MUST past at least 250 in CLT, the current case is most custom firewalls are equal or slightly more or less effective than Windows system itself.
- All firewalls Should have ARP poisoning blocked by default which is simply not the case for a lot of firewalls including Comodo's this ARP poisoning attack can cause serious issues with security, and blocking it would block a lot of packet sniffing attempts over LAN.
Firewalls need to block attacks, they are the FIRST line of defense. Which MUST be reliable and secure.
Independent lab results are reliable, but aren't 100% trustable.
You need to take it with care and only as light reference.
Typical user video reviews are useless.
I only like
@cruelsister cryptoseries, and some specific videos
In the end, you should use what you trust.
Antiviruses are pretty much equal in terms of detection amoung the good ones, Kaspersky, Bitdefender, Eset, Avast, AVG etc.
I think that all antiviruses are okay, but they aren't.
We need to stop treating them like they are okay, they aren't! Antiviruses suck right now, they can't block everything they need to, and that is a massive drawback to your protection.
Esspecially Symantec, with such a big customer base. They NEED to improve security, same goes for Mcafee and Trend.