Sorry, I cannot view that WEB site as it depends on Java and javascript to work. For me, that kind of puts a hole in their credibility.
So, your opinion is based off of what you read on other sites. How do you know those sites are accurate or have any credibility at all?
That site works just fine with javascript and java blocked. You just lose a couple of UI features. Links are direct linked and in PDF form.
How do you know anything you see is accurate, from any source? By default everything you see and experience is a false image created by your brain. Are you saying now that, by stating your expert opinnion, you have done an exhaustive testing on all major AV products using the lock&key secret dataset of all registered virus signatures? LOL gimme a break. With all due respect how can you talk about credibility after that?
Feel free to show me proof of a single AV that has a 100% detection rate, which would effectively mean it actually protects the end user.
With all statistics pointing to the best of AVs having 98-99,6% detection rates that leaves 10 200 known signatures that are missed by the best of the AV:s despite heuristics and analytics and the fact that a KNOWN signature is available for the threats (Norton has 17+ million signatures for example). Naturally one can deduct that the failure rate is much higher on the cases where a known signature is not available (Stuxnet, anyone?). High persistent rate of infected computers also speaks to my favor as most of the infected computers are running the false promise of an AV at the time of the infection. The attackers are just ahead of the game and take over the computer.
100% of the computers I've seen infected with a malware or a virus have been running an antivirus at the time of the infection and sometimes even after the infection, oblivious to the fact of being infected
We have such cases even here in AH community judging from the posts of people asking for help.