It has happened before, it just happened again and it will happen in the future. It is inevitable! Some company that needs to get some press coverage or public visibility will release yet another statement on how worthless Anti-Virus is, based on its own dysfunctional test. For this “test”, they used the VirusTotal service. VirusTotal
anti-malware comparative testing
I was interviewed yesterday by Fred Donovan, following up on the paper on AMTSO I presented at EICAR earlier this month. I may be prejudiced, but I think he's summarized my current thoughts on the topic pretty well in the article, though it isn't my recommendation that the existing guidelines be reviewed independently: it was
AMTSO's discussions on its own new directions, and updates to its testing-related resources.
A new conference paper discusses whether AMTSO has the credibility to achieve its aims of raising testing standards on its own.
Even as AMTSO attempts to bring some qualified and competent guidance to testing methodologies, and individuals with an agenda or paranoia invent stories about why it is not good, we see more completely incompetent testing. I refer this time to the test that Steve Ragan wrote about at http://www.thetechherald.com/article.php/201031/5979/Anti-Virus-industry-lacking-when-it-comes-to-detection-says-report. The test performed by Cyveillance, who
I may have mentioned the Anti-Malware Testing Standards Organization here before. ESET is an enthusiastic supporter of this initiative, and several members of the research and lab teams attended the meeting at the beginning of this week in Cupertino. Lots of interesting and stimulating discussion took place. The Review of Reviews Board (or Review Analysis
You may have noticed that I’ve been making a lot of references to this over the past few weeks. You can now download it here. Quite a few people have worked pretty hard to make this project happen, and I’d like to thank them now. I hope some of you will find it interesting and