rf> Wow! That's some heavy shit! Stand still while I take a
rf> deep breath
rf> and adjust the crosshairs!
rf> BANG!
rf> YOU'RE DEAD!
rf> Just joking! (Did you have a heart attack ?)
Not really. You know I'm right, and I know you're big enough not to take
umbrage at constructive criticism, even if it's a bit up close and personal.
rf> > The goalposts ARE in the wrong place if the losing team is allowed to
rf> > kick a winning goal in the car park!
rf> At least the goalpoasts are stationary. This gives other
rf> teams the
rf> chance to play the same way ... but IMO it would be a Bad
rf> Thing if AVP
rf> sacrificed overall detection just to get Wild List
rf> certification.
Wouldn't the smart thing be for AVP's investigative team to put extra effort
into getting the Wild List cert AND keeping up the overall detection ?
rf> Yeah ... I've seen it. You don't really want me to turn
rf> this echo into
rf> an a.c.v clone, do you ?
SHIT NO!
rf> IMO many AV companies would go under if product tests were
rf> conducted by
rf> true independents on a level playing field and customers
rf> had access to
rf> the _genuine_ performance figures. There are some abysmal
rf> products out
rf> there being kept afloat by their shonky "100% detection"
rf> ads ... some of
rf> them based on magazine tests on just a few lousy viruses.
I wholeheartedly agree, but I'll go even further. If you choose your scanner
even based on the Wild List Test, you're fucked in the head! For instance,
ESafe Protect detects 99.8% of the Wild List, so you would assume from this
figure that it's one of the world's best scanners, but it shows up as weak as
piss in the real world, detecting only 52% of the Secure Computing full
collection.
The Wild List Test started life as a reputable guideline, but it has been
massaged with snake oil by "big in hype" and "small in detection" anti-virus
companies for so long that it has lost all its credibility.
LuKE
---
---------------
* Origin: TBAV ---> tbav.com.au ... AVP ---> antivirus.com.au (3:640/886)
|