Test Lab
Test Title
MRG Effitas Q4 2018 360 Degree Assessment and Certification
AMTSO Test ID
Platform
Vendor
Publication date
Statement from Test Lab
Tested products
| Vendor | Product | Vendor status |
|---|---|---|
| AVAST | Business Antivirus | participant |
| Avira | Antivirus Pro - Business edition | participant |
| Bitdefender | Gravityzone Advanced Business Security - cloud | participant |
| ESET | Endpoint Security | participant |
| F-Secure | Protection Service for Business | participant |
| Kaspersky | Small Office Security | participant |
| Microsoft | Windows Defender | included |
| McAfee | Endpoint Security | included |
| Symantec | Endpoint Protection | participant |
AMTSO Standard compliance info
Notification issued
Notification method
Test plan
Commencement date
Participants
“Included” Vendors
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 |
Commentary received
| Vendor | Commentary phase | Comment |
|---|---|---|
| Symantec | Phase 1 | 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 |
AMTSO Standard compliance status
| Confirmed compliant with AMTSO Standard v1.1 | Compliance report |
