Any plans to test this on VB 100 and AV Comparatives? [Archive]

View Full Version : Any plans to test this on VB 100 and AV Comparatives?

ejr

01-22-2007, 10:35 PM

My standards of excellence for an AV are how it fairs on the Virus Bulletin 100 test as well as on the AV Comparatives tests.

Any plans to test this product against those standards?

Simon Clausen

01-22-2007, 10:50 PM

Sure is; it's passed WestCoast labs (awards going up soon); it's in progress at ICSA; and when the next VB100% rolls around we'll submit it to that (VB100% isn't on-demand, just when the next Windows XP testing occurs).

Simon

btman

01-24-2007, 06:42 PM

This is my first post on these forums but I am a past user of SD and may decide to get the version 5 since it will be lighter. I had a good experience with the program but haven't gotten the PC Tools anti-virus because I haven't seen it on av comparatives.

I would love to see it there though! And if your worried about the results you could always merge it with SD and make PC Tools anti-malware... Like AVG did with their anti-spyware..Which will definitely boost their results LOTS on the tests.

AChen

01-24-2007, 11:19 PM

Appreciate the feedback. :)

Spyware Doctor 5.0 will be released on the 29th of January.

btman

04-06-2007, 07:45 PM

Since Spyware Doctor 5 is out and its got the ability to have the AV integrated in it... Will we see it on the next AV-Comparatives test?

btman

04-12-2007, 10:37 AM

And please give me a straight answer... Not "We are participating in many tests ect"... Be like "Yes soon"... Panda is participating in 2008, I'm mad it will take that long to see their results but at least they've said yes we are... In 2008 lol.

btman

04-19-2007, 05:33 AM

Are you guys going to put SD 5 with the AV plugin for tests on Av-Comparatives? Yes or No. And When?

Simple question...

AChen

04-26-2007, 12:37 AM

Are you guys going to put SD 5 with the AV plugin for tests on Av-Comparatives? Yes or No. And When?

Simple question...

Hi btman,

We have CheckMark (West Coast Labs) Certification for
- SD
- AV.

We have submitted to
- CheckMark for SD+AV
- ICSA for AV

We will submit to VB100 on thier next call which is June 2007
http://www.virusbtn.com/vb100/about/schedule.xml

btman

05-18-2007, 10:36 PM

Hi btman,

We have CheckMark (West Coast Labs) Certification for
- SD
- AV.

We have submitted to
- CheckMark for SD+AV
- ICSA for AV

We will submit to VB100 on thier next call which is June 2007
http://www.virusbtn.com/vb100/about/schedule.xml

So you won't put it on the most reputable Anti-Virus testing site made to this date? :( :( :(

btman

05-27-2007, 11:25 PM

c_edge

05-28-2007, 07:21 AM

SD has a great detection rate compared to other antispyware programs. Still yet to try the AV 3.5 beta. Havent come around to that, but sounds like the detection has been improved compared to previous AV programs. Will let you know how it goes when i get around to it.

c_edge

AChen

06-04-2007, 11:14 PM

Just want to say I uninstalled Spyware Doctor... Although I would have liked to try it with the Anti-Virus addon... If I can't see how well a products doing its job without having to kill my computer... Why should I believe that its top notch protection?

btman,

We have received the VB100% award for both SD+AV and PCTAV in the June edition of Virus Bulletin, please see: http://www.virusbtn.com/virusbulletin/index.xml

btman

06-06-2007, 07:30 AM

btman,

We have received the VB100% award for both SD+AV and PCTAV in the June edition of Virus Bulletin, please see: http://www.virusbtn.com/virusbulletin/index.xml

Minor leagues, and thats not an IMO statement... It's well known that VB 100% is a small victory compared to being top dog or even near the top at Av-Comparatives.

It seems that the thing about VB100% certification lately is: passes and fails aren't always indicative of a product's real-world ability to detect malware anymore.

Unfortunately, that quote from someone @ Wilders is true.

Onecare passed it too... We both know that if I put One-Care on my system... In one week of high risk surfing... My computer would be pretty badly infected.

It may be a legit test... But still... For REAL, DETAILED, COMPREHENSIVE, TRUSTWORTHY, LEGIT tests that challenge every Anti-Virus software every few months and fair them against thousands of malware... Myself and many other users will go to www.av-comparatives.org.

I hope to see Spyware Doctor + AV addon on there in the future, when its on the next test, or in a year. Until then, I will not consider putting it as my current Anti-Malware solution. I'm not asking for first, I'm not even asking for 5th or 10th. I'm asking YOU (PCTools) to show your not ashamed of how your product fairs againt malware.

Like I said even if its in a year, that will be fine... Panda realizes their detection rates are lower than expected and asked for their results to not be published so they get get a few extra % in there... And in 2008 they will be on every future test on Av-Comparatives. I'm happy Panda has stepped up and I'm considering trying it out as my friend has it... And I ran other scans and his computer was pretty clean. Panda in the near future may be taken off my "Uninstall on sight, get this person a better AV list" that has begun.

PC Tools by you not being tested in AV-Comparatives would be like an athlete who decides "Oh I can't win, why go to the Olympics". Now for an athlete this would more so be like the "FREAKING" Olympics. Saying you got a silver medal or bronze or 5th place at the Olympics is still a good accomplishment, especially on your first attempt.

I hope you can get the big boys upstairs to man-up. Good day.

mjq424

06-06-2007, 10:07 AM

Hi BTman
AV-comparatives have a list of normally tested products. Its not easy in the first place to even be on that list. If PC Tools submit SD+AV/PCTAV to them for a single product test that would in my mind be sufficient (perhaps test it alongside SpySweeper+AV?)

btman

06-07-2007, 09:59 PM

Well why can't PC Tools be one of those "Regulars" ??? I'm not talking just one test... What would that show?

mjq424

06-07-2007, 10:09 PM

btman

06-08-2007, 06:34 AM

Hi
PCTAV has only been around for just over a year now, other vendors like Symantec, McAfee, Kaspersky, etc have been around for decades. It takes time to become acknowledged. I admit, it would be nice if PC Tools at least asked AV comparatives to do a test against some other AV programs.

I'm pretty sure it's been out longer than Comodo's Anti-Virus... Which with like a 55% detection rate (As they're not working on it as hard as fixing bugs and other more important things at this time) they still participate in the "Test of other Anti-Virus products" test and they will participate in it until they can achieve a "Standard". With a 55%, its nothing to brag about... But its showing improvement from 30-40%. Atleast PC Tools could do something like that... Or do a regular "Single Product Test" like Trend Micro and CA Anti-Virus did for the on-demand tests.

mjq424

06-08-2007, 10:08 AM

Hi
I agree, a single product test would be nice.

btman

06-11-2007, 03:42 AM

Mmhmm..

Why be top dog of college football when you could compete in the NFL?

mjq424

06-11-2007, 09:38 AM

Hi
Unfortunately it is up to AV Comparatives who is in their regular tests. PC Tools can ask, but AV Comparatives may need more than just the AV program (I think there are other criteria)

btman

06-13-2007, 05:10 AM

Well yes, they have to receive a "Standard" to be on the regular tests... I'm pretty sure thats the only standard... heh.... And that shouldn't be THAT hard to do if PCTAV + SD is all its talked up to be...

mjq424

06-13-2007, 10:29 AM

@ btman True.
@ PC Tools Support Lets have this tested with AV-comparatives please :)

btman

06-14-2007, 03:25 AM

I talked to IBK and he says PC Tools will probably be tested in September/October in a seperate test. :)

mjq424

06-14-2007, 09:24 AM

Excellent :D

btman

09-18-2007, 04:50 AM

On www.av-comparatives.org under comparatives it says awaiting authorization. Authorize and lets see some results :P

mjq424

09-18-2007, 09:10 AM

Ooooo! Would be interested to know how it gets on.
I would also quite like to compare it to CounterSpy aswell.

btman

09-19-2007, 07:27 AM

Ooooo! Would be interested to know how it gets on.
I would also quite like to compare it to CounterSpy aswell.

True, that's why I'm impatiently awaiting the results lol

solcroft

09-28-2007, 02:33 AM

Update.

Looks like AV-C aren't going to release the test results of SD+AV and Counterspy, with one of the reasons being:

b & c) both products scored under 85% at time of testing (September) based on the August 2007 test-set.
http://www.av-comparatives.org/weblog/?p=76

mjq424

09-28-2007, 07:32 AM

Damn.
PC Tools....Any way we can find out how SD+AV does?

Monman

10-01-2007, 01:42 AM

Update.

Looks like AV-C aren't going to release the test results of SD+AV and Counterspy, with one of the reasons being:

http://www.av-comparatives.org/weblog/?p=76

It does also state that one of the main reasons why the test results of PC Tools SpywareDoctor + AntiVirus 5.0 not being released is quote 'There was apparently a bug in the software at the time of testing. Due that, the results will be not released' unquote.

btman

10-02-2007, 05:59 AM

AChen

10-02-2007, 11:02 PM

Can PC Tools support tell us if you guys are going to have another test when the software isn't bugged?

I don't care if you get below 85%, I just want to know that in 3-6 months or a year that you've improved and this company and product isn't a waste of money.

If there's no test in the first place to see that, then as far as I'm concerned... You're afraid to show your results and PC Tools software is staying off my PC's and anyone I know.

Hi All,

This is the comment I received from the team internally -

We can not comment on specifics of the report and Andreas is very clear about not reproducing reports, or sections of reports. All we can say as per Andreas comments in the blog is SD did not get 85% and it appears to be at least partly due to an issue with how we process non-Windows PE files (i.e. threats that are not Windows executables). Andreas is planning to retest as part of the round-up in March 08 which will no doubt be released publicly.

mjq424

10-03-2007, 06:58 AM

Hi
Thanks for clearing this up AChen. Hopefully there will be improvements next time!

btman

10-08-2007, 06:23 PM

Hi All,

This is the comment I received from the team internally -

We can not comment on specifics of the report and Andreas is very clear about not reproducing reports, or sections of reports. All we can say as per Andreas comments in the blog is SD did not get 85% and it appears to be at least partly due to an issue with how we process non-Windows PE files (i.e. threats that are not Windows executables). Andreas is planning to retest as part of the round-up in March 08 which will no doubt be released publicly.

Not sure if the PC Tools Internet Security has threatfire or something for some extra detection.... But if it's released before then will it be the one tested?

btman

10-23-2007, 05:41 AM

Question above still remains

btman

10-31-2007, 01:42 AM

Dot Dot Dot...

AChen

10-31-2007, 02:33 AM

Not sure if the PC Tools Internet Security has threatfire or something for some extra detection.... But if it's released before then will it be the one tested?

The suite does not currently have ThreatFire integrated but it is being considered for a future release. AV-comparatives will most likely test Spyware Doctor with AV or PC Tools AntiVirus (standalone) although that decision is up to them, products are not “submitted” as such.

As a side note the testing of behavioral anti-malware products like ThreatFire is not really defined yet as it’s a completely different testing methodology. We are working with the industry associations to come up with a suitable methodology as simply scanning a bunch of files and seeing which are detected does not show the effectiveness of a behavioral product. We hope that the testing companies will be able to start testing ThreatFire-type products soon as most of the tests that are purely on-demand detection are not representative of a products true real-time prevention.