Statement from Test Lab
|Avira||Antivirus Pro - Business edition||participant|
|Bitdefender||Gravityzone Advanced Business Security - cloud||participant|
|F-Secure||Protection Service for Business||participant|
|Kaspersky||Small Office Security||participant|
These Vendors did not chose to adopt Participant status under the AMTSO Standard, but may have engaged with the test lab in other ways.
|Commentary||Start date||End date|
|Phase 1 Commentary||2018-11-16||2018-11-27|
|Phase 2 Commentary||2019-02-11||2019-02-18|
3.6.a: Microsoft Edge is not the most widely used browser in the windows OS. Moreover, it is also the most restrictive browser, resulting in a number of Symantec’s protection technologies being unavailable. Based on market share, Chrome would be the most appropriate choice.
Response from Tester: We got the same feedback from multiple vendors. We can’t change this in Q4, but we will experiment with this in Q1.
3.7: The tester should ensure that malicious actions occurred on the system and refrain from simply checking if the application “ran” as an indicator of protection. 3.8: Same complaint at 3.7. The tester is advised to verify that malicious actions occurred.
Response from Tester: We are checking for malicious actions. Methodology/test plan will be updated in Q1.
4.0.7: The tester should clarify if the “Original site” is the one hosting the malware. If so, how would it be ensured that the site is serving a deterministic malicious program and there is no change in content over the period of testing?
Response from Tester: We already use a replay proxy to prevent such issues. Once a content is cached by our replay proxy, the same content is given back during the test. Methodology/test plan will be updated in Q1 to reflect this.
5.6: Use of internal servers for FP testing is not a real-world scenario. There is also no mention of the scale/impact of a FP in the test plan.
Response from Tester: We will discuss internal server issue internally. There is no scale/impact of the FP test, as there is no “one, final ranking” where ITW, performance and FP results are combined together.
6: In the performance section – the tester should clarify number of runs used and the methodology used to address variations between those runs.
Response from Tester: Agree. Methodology/test plan will be updated in Q1