I do not speak about the samples - I haven't seen them, so I am not able to say anything about them. What I was trying to explain is that the whole concept is wrong. In really serious tests the person MUST replicate the viruses by himself - and verify that the samples are able to replicate further. And this is really painful and difficult task. But then he knows exactly what is tested and the comparison has some value. I agree that among those samples there is a lot of working viruses. Other files could be damaged, false alarms etc. and NOBODY is able to say how valid is the test bed. So the value of such tests is *VERY* low...
Pavel
Hi Pavel!
I understood your viewpoint. Virus, by concept has the capability of replication. But like you purpose, would be nearly impossible to make a virus test. You should work in a infected machine and able virus infect virus and their procedure wasn´t this. I agree, it was a simplified test.
But, even they not made a total test, we could learn lessons with their work. They tested a machine for detect a virus for the first time, without execution of the virus sample (that´s i think). That is the best way to fight with a virus in nowadays. Detect it when it arrives and you will be free of trouble. Otherwise, an infected machine would need disinfection and removal tests, and it would be time consumming. Then i ask: Why realize extended tests if an antivirus failed in the first? Time is money, i forgive them...
I expect participate soon of Avast improvement, sending bugs and other observations. My 22 years working with computers must be serve for something at all...
See you later, Alwill Team.