请自己做反病毒产品的比较-熊猫向AV-Comparatives开炮

aerbeisi

原文链接，很新，2008年3月27日发布的。

我读到一则新闻关于AV-Comparatives与反病毒测试实验室结成合作伙伴。很久以前我们就决定不参加AV-Comparatives测试了，有许多理由。我们的观点如下：

-测试者必须是熟练工分得清什么是病毒，什么是正常文件。

-测试者有病毒测试设备，测试文件必须都是病毒，没有正常文件，没有损坏文件等等。没有任何意义去测试15年前的古老的病毒。

-测试者必须检测每个产品的任何一项能力，做到这个你应该运行不同的样本看每个产品到底能做什么（包括行为拦截，启发，病毒定义等）。（本人语：本人终于知道在各项反病毒产品中鲜见熊猫参加的理由了，就这一条根本不用测试了，杀毒软件真的可以灭亡了，比如100多万个样本，检出90多万，剩下的10多万不能检出的都去运行？以现行的观念只能测试扫毒为主，然后辅以扫描速度、资源占用，误报等等。）

-测试者（机构）必须是独立的，以避嫌。

尽管新的测试者（机构）不能解决上面的所提到的所有条件，至少我们现在知道一些聪明人已经能够区分一个文件是木马还是正常文件。我们期望有新的测试启动，让我们期待更科学或更认真的测试而不是右击文件夹然后扫描，任何人在家都能做这是事情。

最后，一个非常糟糕的事情我必须指出：2008年的测试，一些反病毒公司要参加他们的测试要收费了：一些公司要付￥88392，一些公司要付￥44196，一些公司要付￥22098，另外一些免费（本人语：这些钱对一个公司来讲是小意思，不过免费是最好的，这点还是要向VB学习，不知道以什么依据收多收少或者免费）。我们能确定当他们在测试时，对一个付了￥88392和免费参加的产品会没有任何私人感情夹杂在里面吗？我在这里提醒，当你在阅读印在杂志里的，由AV-Comparatives提供的反病毒产品比较时，请谨记此点。

我看了这篇文章，不知道熊猫为什么这么激动，是收费的原因还是上面的四个观点AV-Comparatives多条不符合。

[ 本帖最后由 aerbeisi 于 2008-3-31 20:24 编辑 ]

vick9610

测试结果最多就是个参考

solcroft

有一点必须知道：熊猫不是选择不参加AV-C评测，而是被AV-C踢出来不允许参选的

david_sg

Rants of an immature AV company
By AVC

On 27 March Panda published in its blog a post commenting about AV-Comparative´s fees.

Panda has acted in a very immoral way publishing that information because they knew it was confidential. Their excuse is that they got the information from a different source.

Is ethical to publish something you know it´s confidential just because you are not the source of the information and you´re just repeating something you heard or readed from other source?

I could give details about why there were excluded from several tests, what kind of people they have working in their company or how in the past they conspired to bias comparatives and get better results. But I´ll not do that because if they don´t mind having no ethic I do.

So what´s the reason to publish confidential information on purpose? The answer is simple. They are not happy with the results they scored in the test AV-Comparatives did for ProtectStar (where Panda scored 85,5%). Therefore now they pretend to discredit tests results commenting about the fees and other silly questions. Again this doesn´t talk well about Panda´s behaviour because in the past when they scored good they didn´t discredit our tests but when results are not satisfactories they attack our tests and recommend other tests. About this: Panda wrote initially in their blog: “For magazines and other reviewers, we recommend you take a look at tests run by true knowledgeable professionals such as AV-Test.org.” But they have changed the text and removed that part. Why the change? Very suspicious.

This change of attitude in Panda about our tests talks good enough about the independence of them. We can not be influenced to get better results and obviously fees have nothing to do with the scores.

The fee information has been manipulated and twisted to give the wrong idea that results may depend of them. That´s totally false. Fees were introduced for several reasons like buying components that can be used to make more and better tests or being able to offer better services to the companies being tested.

There is nothing wrong about fees. Other professional testers are also charging to companies for the different services they offer and I didn´t hear anything against that.

Why is Panda so hypocritical to critice AV-Comparatives´ fees but they don´t do the same with AV-Test.org´s fees, the testers they recommend? Well, I rectify… they recommended.

They also critice that companies pay different fees. What kind of stupid argument is it? Do they charge the same to their customers for Panda Antivirus 2008 than Panda Antivirus + FireWall 2008? No, they don´t. Then what´s the point criticing AV-Comparatives for having different fees for the different offered services? Stupid, really stupid argument.

Some more pearls from their blog:

“it does not make sense to test malware that died 15 years ago.” How´s possible they critice our tests and the samples we use if they are not being included in our annual tests and therefore they don´t know what samples we are using nowadays?

“Long time ago we decided not to participate in AV-Comparatives tests”. False! They were excluded (banned) from AV-Comparatives´ tests for reasons that remained and will remain confidential. But if Panda insists saying they were who decided about the participation maybe some mails will have to see the light to proof who´s telling the truth and who doesn´t.

It´s difficult not laugh reading their arguments because they sound like a 5 years old boy with a fit of temper. They should grow up and accept results in the good and in the bad times as other companies do.

Advise for magazines and readers: From AV-Comparatives we recommend to do not put too much faith in what some vendor says, considering that they are trying to sell you something, sometimes using dubious business practices. We always recommend to look at various antivirus test results sources, not only ours or from a third party.
This way you will have more options to compare and form your own opinion.

袋鼠吱吱

They also critice that companies pay different fees. What kind of stupid argument is it? Do they charge the same to their customers for Panda Antivirus 2008 than Panda Antivirus + FireWall 2008? No, they don´t. Then what´s the point criticing AV-Comparatives for having different fees for the different offered services? Stupid, really stupid argument.


OMG，我不理解了，拿McAfee来举例，是不是送测Virusscan是20w，送测防火墙是再加20W，送测EPO是再加60W？可是我只看见AVC测试了反病毒啊，，，太奇怪了。。。

kasper

拜托  他说的是services   offered     只是用panda的product来做类比

袋鼠吱吱

是啊，这种service的差别到底在哪里呢？实在不清楚？难道是免费的甜美嗓音电话mm聊天客服，哇卡卡卡

aerbeisi

command antivirus一些老毒友知道，不过现在公司改名叫Authentium了，是一家美国公司。用的是F-PROT的引擎。因为冰岛的军事防务都是美国人负责的，所以跟美国关系不错，可以理解。

原文链接

一个朋友给了我一个链接：就是4楼网友提供的那篇文章。

我碰到过熊猫的那些人好几次了，他们都是一些很好的人。

我也碰到过Andreas Clementi（本人语：此人为AV Comparatives建立者和协调者）几次。

我在这里再次重申不是所有的被任命的测试者是公平的。我可以说出许多我的观点关于AV Comparatives，但是我不会直说。就让我们说说AV Comparatives从来都没有测试Authentium的软件将来也不会。

我认为熊猫的那些人的表现是正确的和值得尊敬的。我个人对此点深信不疑。在这一行业的其他人没有给我如此深刻的印象。

【补充】
好像AV Comparatives一些理智的人已经占据主导并且从AV Comparatives移除了这篇文章。

我认为争论在私下进行比较好，你不想公开争论，但有时背地里又发生了太多的事情让你不吐不快。

我在这篇文章有些挑衅性的反AV Comparatives言论在里面，实际上本意我是不想发这篇文章的。

The EQs

Recently, a consortium of AV vendors has established non-profit organization that will define testing standards. I am for any cooperation that makes sense for clients and vendors. Tests need to be replicable and should help the vendors make better products.

aerbeisi

我个人是比较认同AV Comparatives这个测试的，但发生了这个插曲。

VB其实比较搓，通过wildlist和误报就是VB100%，其实wildlist非常有偏差。此wildlist更适合欧美的环境。

还有请大家关注一下本版的测试区。非常反应我国实际情况。那里的工作人员非常辛苦和善良