Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Author Topic: IT Security Survey 2014  (Read 790 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

snadge

  • Guest
IT Security Survey 2014
« on: 05 March 2014, 16:15:32 »
Advertisement

steve195527

  • Guest
Re: IT Security Survey 2014
« Reply #1 on: 05 March 2014, 16:44:09 »
odd how the most trusted site in a survey on his site is his,bit of a coincidence that!

snadge

  • Guest
Re: IT Security Survey 2014
« Reply #2 on: 05 March 2014, 16:56:56 »
odd how the most trusted site in a survey on his site is his,bit of a coincidence that!

what makes you arrive at that?

steve195527

  • Guest
Re: IT Security Survey 2014
« Reply #3 on: 05 March 2014, 17:00:46 »
odd how the most trusted site in a survey on his site is his,bit of a coincidence that!

what makes you arrive at that?
have you not read the survey results?

Report results are based on an Internet survey run  by AV-Comparatives between 17th
December 2013
and 17th January 2014. A total of 5,845 computer users from around the world anonymously answered
the questions on the subject of computers and security.


12.  Which of the following testing labs are, in your opinion, reliable and
trustworthy?

snadge

  • Guest
Re: IT Security Survey 2014
« Reply #4 on: 05 March 2014, 17:10:02 »
doeno i havent read it, aint got time

but what you say doesnt make any sense to me?  just because a survey is run by company A doesnt mean everyone has to answer company A?

anyway...it is the best hehehe...your just miffed cos Norton refused to be tested publicly on AV-C anymore due to it not beating everyone else  :P

VB100 only do the top 100 most common infections with NO FP's (I was would rather a FP flag up and me decide than NOT and it get through)

AV-Test have unreliable and iffy testing procedures IMO (ive explained why before iam sure on the site at some time)

Matousec is flawed unlesss you CAN pass all the tests... hence Private Firewall & Comodo you know are good firewalls with HIPS too use...but the rest could be too but (a bit like AV-TEST) you fail ONE (of many tests) your out of the game

sh.i.t like TOP TEN REVIEWS just get paid to say whos top i think

steve195527

  • Guest
Re: IT Security Survey 2014
« Reply #5 on: 05 March 2014, 17:30:49 »
doeno i havent read it, aint got time

but what you say doesnt make any sense to me?  just because a survey is run by company A doesnt mean everyone has to answer company A?

anyway...it is the best hehehe...your just miffed cos Norton refused to be tested publicly on AV-C anymore due to it not beating everyone else  :P

VB100 only do the top 100 most common infections with NO FP's (I was would rather a FP flag up and me decide than NOT and it get through)

AV-Test have unreliable and iffy testing procedures IMO (ive explained why before iam sure on the site at some time)

Matousec is flawed unlesss you CAN pass all the tests... hence Private Firewall & Comodo you know are good firewalls with HIPS too use...but the rest could be too but (a bit like AV-TEST) you fail ONE (of many tests) your out of the game

sh.i.t like TOP TEN REVIEWS just get paid to say whos top i think
I bet you that if his site had come "down the rankings" in poll 12,poll 12 wouldn't have been included in the results table,as for testing procedures AV comparatives are being questioned by more and more vendors as not being representative of what happens in the real world as most of the tests don't take into account many of the techniques modern av products use and most of the tests just rely on simple detection technologies,to be honest I would much rather read what folk like Eugene Kaspersky writes than almost any testing site,most of them are run by hobbiyists who have no real training and probably couldn't tell if a file is active malware,currupted or safe but publish on the web pretending they know more than the top vendors,I remember a test run about 8 yrs ago where Kaspersky got a dire result in detection tests,it turned out Kaspesky didn't detect the so called malware because the files were corruted and wouldn't do anything to a system,some of the other AV products detected some of the incomplete code of the malware and automatically assumed it was malware and would harm a system,in this case the lower detection %age of Kaspersky was the correct one! but the test concluded that Kaspeskys detection was poor!

 

Powered by EzPortal