Cheating Chinese antivirus company Tencent to sue AV-Test.org

vbimport

#1

We’ve just posted the following news: Cheating Chinese antivirus company Tencent to sue AV-Test.org[newsimage]http://static.myce.com//images_posts/2015/05/tencent-logo-narrow-95x75.jpg[/newsimage]

The Chinese antivirus company Tencent will sue German test lab AV-Test for fraud accusations.

            Read the full article here: [http://www.myce.com/news/cheating-chinese-antivirus-company-tencent-to-sue-av-test-org-75993/](http://www.myce.com/news/cheating-chinese-antivirus-company-tencent-to-sue-av-test-org-75993/)

            Please note that the reactions from the complete site will be synched below.

#2

The Chinese antivirus company Tencent will sue German test lab AV-Test for fraud accusations.
Even MS being last in the test could care less about German test lab…I don’t see MS up in arms about their product being shown last-what I care about is that it works and isn’t engineered to past test so you get more users but actually do the work it is suppose to do.

Qihoo denied the accusations and argued that all test methods of the test labs were targeted at western internet users and that the company will therefore no longer participate in future tests.
This more or less confirms that their products violates the test even if it ends up last in the test. Removing a products just confirms to users lack of transparency and distrust to use that software and that they have something to hide.

Qihoo360 argued that all test methods of the test labs were targeted at western internet users
And this makes no sense…whom do you think uses the highest internet bandwidth Western developed nation and if you can hack it then you don’t deserve to be in business. This is Business 101 if you can’t deliver a product then don’t be in this business.


#3

Using MS as an example is probably not ideal as they have admitted that they design their product in such a way that it will always finish at the bottom of tests. Go back to the old statement they made about MSSE being a ‘baseline’ antivirus.

For what it’s worth, the 360 thing about western users is the fact they use cloud technology that differs by area, so you may get slightly different information or results depending where you are in the world. They also say on their blog the testing houses knew in advance the Bitdefender engine was turned on by default in the version sent for testing. What the real truth really is, is anyones guess.

At the end of the day, there has been attempted falsifying and cheating at tests or benchmarks as long as they’ve been around, PC hardware manufacturers, phone makers, software, the list goes on. Nobody should make a judgment about whether they use a product based solely on benchmarks or tests like this, they are a tool to help gather an informed opinion but shouldn’t the final opinion about the software itself.

On a side note, why do these testing labs have to use different versions of the software to the rest of us? Surely using the same download everyone else uses would stop a lot of the attempted cheating.


#4

[QUOTE=roho;2753688]Using MS as an example is probably not ideal as they have admitted that they design their product in such a way that it will always finish at the bottom of tests. Go back to the old statement they made about MSSE being a ‘baseline’ antivirus.[/QUOTE]

Whom said that? This in itself too general to make any logic to it.

[QUOTE=roho;2753688]For what it’s worth, the 360 thing about western users is the fact they use cloud technology that differs by area, so you may get slightly different information or results depending where you are in the world. They also say on their blog the testing houses knew in advance the Bitdefender engine was turned on by default in the version sent for testing. What the real truth really is, is anyones guess.[/QUOTE]

Truth is you shouldn’t have to use another program to hide your own programs shortcomings.

[QUOTE=roho;2753688]At the end of the day, there has been attempted falsifying and cheating at tests or benchmarks as long as they’ve been around, PC hardware manufacturers, phone makers, software, the list goes on. Nobody should make a judgment about whether they use a product based solely on benchmarks or tests like this, they are a tool to help gather an informed opinion but shouldn’t the final opinion about the software itself.[/QUOTE]

Cheating doesn’t help either. FACT. No benchmarks are were users can evaulate program and decide on their own what fits their need based on tests that it does what it suppose to do not what they want us to think it does.

[QUOTE=roho;2753688]On a side note, why do these testing labs have to use different versions of the software to the rest of us? Surely using the same download everyone else uses would stop a lot of the attempted cheating.[/QUOTE]

hmm…it’s called “Their choosing” from what test they do plain and simple as that. If you don’t like it stop reading or blogging it? It’s really that easy.


#5

Whom said that? This in itself too general to make any logic to it.
Microsoft themselves said in 2013: “The natural progression is that we will always be on the bottom of these tests. And honestly, if we are doing our job correctly, that’s what will happen.”. They are not up in arms about being bottom because they know that’s where the product will finish because it’s designed that way. Go search for it if you don’t believe me…

Truth is you shouldn’t have to use another program to hide your own programs shortcomings.
Hide what shortcomings? Qihoo turned an option on by default which isn’t usually on by default, it’s still there if you care to turn it on yourself. If the test version had the Bitdefender engine and the user version didn’t, that would be a major issue. This issue seems to be more about the differing default configurations as opposed to offering different levels of overall protection.

Cheating doesn’t help either. FACT. No benchmarks are were users can evaulate program and decide on their own what fits their need based on tests that it does what it suppose to do not what they want us to think it does.
I wouldn’t disagree, but being good or bad at a benchmark only tells you how the program performs in a benchmark, and not much else. MSSE is a classic example, it’s been finishing at the bottom of these tests for a while now, and yet there are still millions of users around the world that swear by it or say it’s still good enough for them  To MSSE users it seems, all these benchmarks are irrelevant, and in some ways, they may have a point. Also, how do we know other vendors haven’t cheated in some way at these tests in the past (or currently), and not been found out? A benchmark is just that, a pointer to help, nothing more.

hmm…it’s called “Their choosing” from what test they do plain and simple as that. If you don’t like it stop reading or blogging it? It’s really that easy.
A very odd response to my question, I’m simply asking why test labs use ‘special’ versions of the product and not the consumer versions that are downloaded and used by everyone else. That would stop test versions being tampered with or altered and thus close off one area of potential cheating…


#6

[QUOTE=roho;2753801]
A very odd response to my question, I’m simply asking why test labs use ‘special’ versions of the product and not the consumer versions that are downloaded and used by everyone else. That would stop test versions being tampered with or altered and thus close off one area of potential cheating…[/QUOTE]

For quite some time, reviewers of products have gone straight to the source to ask for whatever product they want to review. It might be a similar thing here: the security companies may have been notified about the test and were given a chance to submit a particular version that they believe is representative of the product line as a whole.

Benefit of going this way: the company can’t claim that their product had been represented unfairly (like there’s no chance of getting an outdated version, or a limited trial, or a fake version…or a genuine version redistributed by someone else with other initial settings or add-ons). Yes, it’s relying on the company to be truthful, but it’s preferable to procuring a test sample yourself.

And if things go wrong, it gives the company a chance to explain or fix things BEFORE the review goes out. In cases like this, it makes things worse, because the reviewers know enough to detect when things are off and can devote time to further examination.


#7

While I agree with your sentiment, there can be no complaint if a full and official link is given to the version on test, although this is more difficult than it needs to be these days with online installers and the difficulty getting hold of certain full installer versions…

Also, in my humble opinion it makes all the results at these test labs slightly less relevant if they are not testing the exact same version everyone else uses. To get the full release version a number of days earlier than the rest of us is one thing, to use something which closely resembles but isn’t what the rest of us get, is another.


#8

I agree with Roho: If I read a benchmark about any product, whether it’s a CPU, video card, computer security software, etc. I would expect the benchmark to be based on the actual product, not some special version. Even if the A-V vendors are honest, different versions of a program will almost certainly produce different results. After all, isn’t the goal of getter different (presumably better) results the whole reason for making newer versions, as opposed to releasing the same version for several decades at a time?