Beware. Antivirus software testers with dated testing methodologies frequently praise AV products with equally dated technologies.

March 14, 2012 | By Editor

How do various industries go beyond their marketing messages to convincingly prove their products are worthy of purchase by consumers? One of the most time-honored ways corporations accomplish this is by participating in periodic trials conducted by the reputable testing organizations within their industries. And then, by announcing how well their automobile, microwave or shampoo did in those tests. – In their advertising. On their Web sites. Even on their packaging.

For example, participating in the annual gauntlet such venerable testing organizations as Matousec puts software products through, is how Antivirus providers prove the effectiveness of their products. And Comodo has enthusiastically submitted to Matousec’s suite of tests for years. In fact, we’re proud to tout that we’ve earned Matousec’s No. 1 rating. Three years in a row!

But here comes the catch for consumers of high technology products such as Antivirus Software. The test results that various AV product providers advertise ARE ONLY AS VALID AS THE TESTING METHODOLOGIES EMPLOYED BY THE TEST ORGANIZATIONS THEY USE. And in the ever-evolving world of high technology, keeping your testing methodology up-to-date is very challenging.

This is important for you (the PC user interested in purchasing only the most effective antivirus software) to know. Because if you make your purchase after being impressed by well advertised test results that were issued by an organization whose testing methodology is dated, the ability of your brand new software to stop the latest viruses, worms and Trojans may be as inferior as that testing organization’s methodology!

Consider this critical, current-day example. Lead by Comodo, today’s most advanced antivirus developers have migrated from a dated Black List strategy that detects known threats only AFTER they’ve entered your PC, to a far superior White List strategy that prohibits all known and unknown threats BEFORE they enter your PC. Matousec has acknowledged this migration. And so, their testing methodology has kept pace. But beware. Because not all testing organizations have recognized the importance of this crucial technologically advanced migration.

One example is a still highly respected European testing organization some AV providers continue to rely on for high marks. This testing organization’s name is AV Comparatives. AV Comparatives is an excellent example of a tester that still focuses primarily on an antivirus’ ability to DETECT threats AFTER they’ve entered your PC. And not an antivirus’ ability to PREVENT threats FROM EVER ENTERING your PC. In fact, while AV Comparatives makes their File Detection Test “mandatory,” their Proactive Protection Test is only “optional.” This is why Comodo, as well as other industry leaders like Symantec’s Norton, refrain from future participation in AV Comparatives’ annual trials.

And it’s also why you will no longer find the test results of a testing organization like AV Comparatives advertised on Comodo’s Web site or on our packaging.

How valid are the test results you may find promoted by some of our antivirus product competitors? Well, we can only suggest that the following adage is at least as valid:

When you’re forewarned, you’re forearmed.

Comodo. Science Not Hype.

- Glenn Scheuer

To learn more, simply visit Comodo.com/home/internet-security/internet-security-pro.php.

Comments

krzysztof March 14, 2012 at 8:14 pm

why was comodo then not included in the dymanic protection test with the other entrants? while i agree about how there is a uncanny reverance for certain tests, that particular test would silence a lot of critics of the software.

Reply

Add new comment

Your name
Comment

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>


four − 1 =