SendOfJive wrote:
Elsewhere wrote:If Symantec thought that AV-Comparatives was behaving as unscrupulously as you’ve described above, then wouldn't it be within Symantec's rights to purchase a standalone Real-World protection test for their Norton products from AV-Comparatives? Surely a refusal to conduct that test would confirm that suspicion. Only Symantec themselves can confirm or deny this. Please also keep in mind that AV-Comparatives has their reputation to uphold....
AV-Comparatives would not permit Symantec to "purchase" participation in a single test - that is not allowed. It requires vendors to participate in all of the compulsory tests. That is the point. Symantec has a quarrel with the File Detection test methodology and is willing to forgo placement in the Real World and other tests rather than submit to a test that it feels is providing misleading results. [...]
The assumption that AV-Comparatives would not permit Symantec to purchase participation in a single test is still largely speculation. AV-Comparatives has already set a precedent that would enable Symantec to do so. Symantec needs to advise whether or not they actually attempted to purchase a Real-World protection test after the recent ad-hoc Symantec/Norton product tests conducted by AV-Comparatives and advise what the outcome was.
SendOfJive wrote:[...] If AV-Comparatives feels that it is somehow obligated to publsih test results for Norton even if Symantec has elected not to participate, then it should stick with its stated principles and publish results for all mandatory tests. Of course, that would mean that participation would no longer be voluntary for anyone [...]
That’s the core issue here – participation in all independent tests should be mandatory for all vendors.
One of the biggest issues that's present across the whole antivirus software (AV) industry is the exaggerated claims made by each vendor’s product advertising about how effective their products are at protecting users. If their products effectiveness actually matched their advertised claims, then the global cost of cybercrime should be negligible. Instead, what we actually find is that the annual cost of cybercrime is this:
The findings are both eye-opening and deeply concerning. According to the report, some 1 million-plus adults become cybercrime victims every single day and, if you break that down, it equates to a staggering 12 victims per second. [...]
And what an impact that turns out to be, with the global price tag of consumer cybercrime now topping US$113 billion annually – enough to host the 2012 London Olympics nearly 10 times over – while the cost per cybercrime victim has shot up to USD$298: a 50% increase over 2012. [...]
Source: http://www.symantec.com/connect/blogs/cybercrime-takes-its-toll
Try writing the text “$113 billion” as a number on a piece of paper. Then tell me why AV software vendors should have the option of NOT participating in independent product testing. The onus is on the AV software vendors themselves to prove that their software works as per their advertised claims. If the global cost of cybercrime tops US$113 billion annually, then it also highlights the fact that, under the current funding arrangements, the independent AV software testing facilities are seriously under-funded. That’s a win for cybercrime...
Given the above, consumers rely on the test results from AV software testing facilities like AV-Comparatives to separate the facts from the fiction. These test results allow consumers to make an informed decision about the product they will eventually choose to use to protect them, whether it be a free or paid-for product. Symantec now needs to make a decision about where they stand here; knowing, of course, that the clock is ticking...
PS I would like to remind everyone reading this thread that this is a public discussion. If you would like to share your views on this topic, then please do so now. As I mentioned earlier, there is a time limit in play here.
