Are AV tests corrupt?

[SuperSparks]

Here's and interesting article. I've long had my suspicions about some magazine AV reviews

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/08...virus_testing/

[lgbpop]

I don't know about the vendors, but I don't trust the reviewers myself. Unfortunately, one has to rely on them to a point. So, consider the source. I've noticed when Googling an A/V the less-reputable ones all have reviews listed from companies that are affiliated with the A/V instead of independents. The better ones tend to be reviewed by PCMagazine or similar sources.

[SpywareDr]

It has been widely known that individual [anti-malware] companies are being allowed to supply specific "samples" to several "independent testing companies" so that their product will rate much higher then the competitions'. This is not only unfair and technologically flawed, but also strides across a wide line of ethically appropriate behavior. This is potentially harmful to all of us as consumers and individuals on the Internet and to the Internet as a whole.
...
The public is getting a VERY corrupt and biased view that doesn't relate even remotely to the real world level of malware protection. This type of testing is very biased and yet the public is generally unaware of the faith that they place in several magazines that are promoting the results of these fly-by-night companies with lack of industry standard credentials.

In the end, the computer user doesn't really care about the rate of detection or the features, they just want their computer to be protected as best as they can possibly make it with administration that's as easy as possible.
...
The anti-malware industry needs a "gold standard" to guide the development of a fair and truly unbiased measure of the product's effectiveness. This gold standard needs to be untainted by graft, ignorance and pseudo-science. The public deserves it. The industry should pull together to force it.

I wholeheartedly agree.