Antivirus Testing Inaccurate?

[Rich Tate]

Security vendors are beginning to wonder about the validity of antivirus testing. They feel more comprehensive testing is in order to ensure accuracy, claiming that the present infect and clean method does not properly test all the features.

Relations between vendors and testing organizations are generally cordial but occasionally tense when a product fails a test. Representatives in both camps agree that the testing regimes need to be overhauled to give consumers a more accurate view of how different products compare.

 

[Rembrandt]

I totally agree. I had a Trojan on my computer and Nod32 and SuperAntispyware did not pick up but NoAdware did. My computer is now back to speed.

 

[AshleyG]

I totally agree. I had a Trojan on my computer and Nod32 and SuperAntispyware did not pick up but NoAdware did. My computer is now back to speed.

I believe it wasn't picked up because it may have still been packed. NOD32's heuristics really only function at their best during the unpacking stage when the offending item would be sandboxed for testing. NOD32 must not have seen it to be a threat in its current state.

Try sending the file to VirusTotal and see what it comes up with. I bet it will be a packed file.

 

[Catweazle]

This is only half the story, really. The bit related to issues of concern between security software developers and security software testing. But there are also issues which should concern users of security software.

All too often users are presented with reports which contain 'ratings' of competing products, when in actual fact the testing conducted is based more upon the detection of sythetic viruses than it is on real-world performance. End-users can be, and sometimes are, scared off from products which would meet their needs perfectly well, on the basis of reports based upon tests which don't even show failure to detect actual real world threats.