ESET goes even further down hill

[Kulin]

The New Zealand PC World March 2012 test report has

ESET down near the bottom of the list at #7.

 

[kurt wismer]

The New Zealand PC World March 2012 test report has

ESET down near the bottom of the list at #7.

and what exactly makes tests reported by the new zealand pc world
worth paying attention to? who actually performs the test? are they a
recognized independent testing organization? do they publish their
testing methodology?

 

[Charlie]

The New Zealand PC World March 2012 test report has

ESET down near the bottom of the list at #7.

Why would we give any weight to this tin pot tree fodder?

 

[Bear Bottoms]

and what exactly makes tests reported by the new zealand pc world
worth paying attention to? who actually performs the test? are they a
recognized independent testing organization? do they publish their
testing methodology?

Who would you pay attention to?

--
Bear
http://bearware.info
The real Bear's header path is:
news.sunsite.dk!dotsrc.org!filter.dotsrc.org!news.dotsrc.org!not-for-
mail

 

[kurt wismer]

Who would you pay attention to?

av-test.org and av-comparatives.org.

 

[Bear Bottoms]

av-test.org and av-comparatives.org.

I've seen their testing comparisions fall short of the mark. It's good
information to a point, but don't take them to the bank. An example is
test one program not designed to do the feature against another that
was. At any rate, these tests leave or give a false sensation of
security as all of the programs fail to achieve 100%. Such is not
possible as it is the nature of the game.

No one can put up a bullet proof shield and utilize the networks.
Otherwise, IT security teams wouldn't be needed. It is a constant
battle, and no one, especially in this group, has a handle on it. Best
to be prepared to recover.

--
Bear
http://bearware.info
The real Bear's header path is:
news.sunsite.dk!dotsrc.org!filter.dotsrc.org!news.dotsrc.org!not-for-
mail

 

[kurt wismer]

I've seen their testing comparisions fall short of the mark.

no test is perfect, but they are both well regarded independent
testing organizations and both part of a committed effort to improve
the quality of anti-malware testing.

It's good
information to a point, but don't take them to the bank. An example is
test one program not designed to do the feature against another that
was.

and since they both do whole product testing, the above example is
nonsense.

whole product testing, if you're not aware, is where they test the
entire product to see if any part of it would stop the malware.

At any rate, these tests leave or give a false sensation of
security as all of the programs fail to achieve 100%.

this makes no sense. how do they give a false sense of security by
telling you the products *aren't* perfect?

 

[Bear Bottoms]

this makes no sense. how do they give a false sense of security by
telling you the products *aren't* perfect?

That is a good point. I just don't think enough empahsis is given to the
shortcomings or alternatives to overcome them. They are /leaders/ in this
field and a lot of people use their ratings to make their choice of tools.