Sorry, while I do appreciate your many other posts and news links which are both well informed and from experience, I have to laugh at the concept of the aging EICAR virus test which has not been updated since 2003 (and possibly older in some cases.) This is not a worthy test of any Anti-Virus and a simple fake Anti-Virus could check for this using very few lines of code in various programming languages and prove nothing, except for the simple identification/detection of said string or test string in some common archive wrapper (.zip files for instance.) This whole concept is so full of holes as to be laughable and when the industry suggests this is a valid way to test the efficacy of the product as to be in proper working order it bloods my blood. No offense to you of course. I just don’t want people to be ill informed of this sham of a test. It is utterly meaningless except to show perhaps how many layers of and types of archives that an Anti-Virus can detect through before “inevitably crapping” out as it were. This may be useful if the product or services author does not publish the Anti-Virus’s true abilities to interpret and unwrap archives in a sandbox or in memory for evaluation and little is ever published of course on how deep or simply put how many multiple wrappers they can penetrate and still read through. Sorry I felt compelled to add my to cents when I read to EICAR reference in the post.
Good luck on all future testing and I do like reading your blog.