Re: An antivirus telltale

>> now, come tell me that AV reviews don't lie :)

> Never.. <G>

:D

> I'm not sure how you came to this conclusion from the above tests
> (what you are seeing specifically?) but I agree there are big issues
> with testing and reviewing antimalware..

well... as JBob wrote (he got the point); many "big names" totally
ignored
the worm; neither their signatures nor their heuristic engines flagged
it
worst, after a relatively long (in terms of signatures update) interval
of
time, many AV didn't include the critter

> Some are "pay for review" sites that will give you the results
they
are
> paid to produce, some are incompetent in understanding the technology
> they are testing and then we have the company Marketing Departments
> that dress up the facts of their own products..

for sure; I know that, but I think that such "biased tests" have
reached
the limit; when a "specialized" magazine/site/... tells that the AV
"X"
is
the best around and will protect you 100% ... I DON'T believe them, but
there are a lot of users which will take their word for true, install
such an
AV and feel protected... just to become part of a botnet in a few days
:P

Lying to sell isn't a new thing <g>, but now they're causing big damages
to *everyone* including the AV vendors; the only ones to have a benefit
from those lies are the virus "owners"; now, I'm not wearing a
tinfoil
hat,
but ... well, this makes me think :)

"ObiWan" <anzen.NO@SPAM.gmx.net> wrote in message 
news:48209039@APPSERV1.gamewoodapp.net...
>
> well... as JBob wrote (he got the point); many "big names"
totally
> ignored
> the worm; neither their signatures nor their heuristic engines flagged
> it
> worst, after a relatively long (in terms of signatures update) interval
> of
> time, many AV didn't include the critter

Yes sir, it'd be interesting to have them explain publicly why they've not 
included submitted malware, specifically the Zlob and Storm variants  I was 
sending.


>> Some are "pay for review" sites that will give you the
results they
> are
>> paid to produce, some are incompetent in understanding the technology
>> they are testing and then we have the company Marketing Departments
>> that dress up the facts of their own products..
>
> for sure; I know that, but I think that such "biased tests" have
reached
> the limit; when a "specialized" magazine/site/... tells that the
AV "X"
> is
> the best around and will protect you 100% ... I DON'T believe them, but
> there are a lot of users which will take their word for true, install
> such an
> AV and feel protected... just to become part of a botnet in a few days
> :P

There's a claim of 100% protection out there.. in print? <BG>

Nothing "new" about quid pro quo or site bias per se, magazine/site's
have 
done it (hardware and software) for years for their big advertisers.


> Lying to sell isn't a new thing <g>, but now they're causing big
damages
> to *everyone* including the AV vendors; the only ones to have a benefit
> from those lies are the virus "owners"; now, I'm not wearing a
tinfoil
> hat,
> but ... well, this makes me think :)


Kevin tells a story about a certain vendor using a compiler on his own box 
to create a worm that left his personal computers "signature" embedded
in 
the code if you knew where to look. <G>
Crude and amateur hour but no reason to believe someone with real skills 
might not do the same or worse. As we both know, the "big money" is on
the 
other side of the fence.