There's a big difference to scoring the same as other antivirus and outperforming them. I have no reason to doubt the validity of the tests for the samples used. It shows what others have said, that the difference in protection between big name antivirus is fairly insignificant. In addition, if the tests were done with more recent samples, then I'm sure there would that AhnLab would not have scored so well.
So then whats the point of doing these tests if all AV's score the same? to mislead customers? are they paid by the AV companies? (latter of which is true)
As I said I believe the test scores provide an accurate indication of the detection rate for the samples used. Whether the samples they use, or the samples used for testing in the malware Hub here - which may be more recent, better represent malware that users are typically going to encounter in the wild, I don't know.
Theres nothing to backup any of their claims, all you can do is take their word for it.
You insist on the conspiracy theory. So no one can convince you about anything. We can continue this interesting conversation privately. I am curious if you believe in something.
Have to agree on that one, there is literally no indicator that the samples that are used are fresh or do properly resemble a real-world-scenario in any way. I am not saying that their tests are fake, but they just aren't transparent enough for my taste.
The AV vendors have access to the missed samples and can negotiate with the AV Lab if they think that something was done unproperly. For many years, there was no indication of unfaithfulness. There are several AV-Labs that concur on the AV testing market and there are many people involved.
As I said above, I don't impute anything to anyone here. All I said is that the tests are not transparent enough in my opinion. Also, why would any AV company complain about the testing methodology when pretty much every AV scores well in those tests?
Several AV vendors resigned because of poor results. Some vendors (like Trend Micro) still participate in tests despite some very poor results (AV-Comparatives Malware Protection tests).Also, why would any AV company complain about the testing methodology when pretty much every AV scores well in those tests?
I don't see any very poor results for Trend Micro tbh...
yes, windows defender need improve, but in detection improved...Did Microsoft take over the Comodo AV?
Please look here:
Believe me, most people on this thread know a lot about prevention, keyloggers, and the protection of Comodo, Keyscrambler, Zemana AntiLogger, and Spyshelter. If you are interested in discussion then you have to open a separate thread.
App Review - Best Firewall for Windows (The PC Security Channel)
malwaretips.com
I use a third party antivirus, and it is money very well spent. Microsoft Defender does not suit my needs, but the third party antivirus does. It is lighter, more configurable and never causes any issues.
if I intend to spend the rest of my life with her - Looks count in life more than we realise
Ha, ha. But in the end, our wives/husbands are rarely the "top models" (for good reasons).People buy or reject cars /houses / people etc, etc based on the GUI (how it looks) often on a car simply the front grille or dashboard - Most products we buy have had much time spent on it's GUI - For example as a man a females GUI would be hugely critical but not the only aspect of her
I'm actually trying out Vipre IS, and the UI is so bad, I'm ready to ditch it immediately. It looks like something an amature coder cooked up in their spare time, and it's buggy as all hell too (visually).People buy or reject cars /houses / people etc, etc based on the GUI (how it looks) often on a car simply the front grille or dashboard - Most products we buy have had much time spent on it's GUI - For example as a man a females GUI would be hugely critical but not the only aspect of her
