Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="danb" data-source="post: 883713" data-attributes="member: 62850">Based on other lab tests, I can certainly see your point.This is pure speculation on my part, but my best guess (based on my experiences with PCMag) is that PCMag took the time to learn how Webroot works and to really understand what all goes on under the hood, so that they can formulate a valid testing procedure for Webroot.&nbsp; Again, pure speculation... then the testing labs, in an effort to level the playing field, used testing procedures that we valid for most products, but not for Webroot.Or maybe Burrito is right about Webroot... I have no idea either way.Either way, I am a HUGE proponent of testing, and verifying with the vendor that test was performed correctly for each product.&nbsp; The main requirement is that all products should be tested in their default configuration, unless otherwise specified by the vendor, and there better be a VERY good reason that an alternate configuration should be used in testing.&nbsp; For example, we ask labs to test VS on AutoPilot, simply because that mode is not deny-by-default and it is more consistent with their testing methodologies.&nbsp; It cracks me up when a product fails a test and the vendor claims &quot;Our product failed because it needs to be tailored for each system&quot;.&nbsp; Malware does not discriminate.&nbsp; Most cybersecurity software can be hardened, but at some point it is not usable.&nbsp; This is why dynamic security postures is vital... but that is a whole different story.I am serious about thinking of recommendations for the testing labs... I am certain they are open to new ideas.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="danb, post: 883713, member: 62850"] Based on other lab tests, I can certainly see your point. This is pure speculation on my part, but my best guess (based on my experiences with PCMag) is that PCMag took the time to learn how Webroot works and to really understand what all goes on under the hood, so that they can formulate a valid testing procedure for Webroot. Again, pure speculation... then the testing labs, in an effort to level the playing field, used testing procedures that we valid for most products, but not for Webroot. Or maybe Burrito is right about Webroot... I have no idea either way. Either way, I am a HUGE proponent of testing, and verifying with the vendor that test was performed correctly for each product. The main requirement is that all products should be tested in their default configuration, unless otherwise specified by the vendor, and there better be a VERY good reason that an alternate configuration should be used in testing. For example, we ask labs to test VS on AutoPilot, simply because that mode is not deny-by-default and it is more consistent with their testing methodologies. It cracks me up when a product fails a test and the vendor claims "Our product failed because it needs to be tailored for each system". Malware does not discriminate. Most cybersecurity software can be hardened, but at some point it is not usable. This is why dynamic security postures is vital... but that is a whole different story. I am serious about thinking of recommendations for the testing labs... I am certain they are open to new ideas. [/QUOTE]

Verification