464 Chapter 10 · Antimalware Evaluation and Testing detect X more viruses than product Y"), and it gives a false impression to the public as to what an anti-malware scanner is actually supposed to do. Detecting malicious software is one thing, but spending your precious processor cycles detecting large amounts of junk simply because some testers don't do their job properly, is a waste of time. This is fraught with danger, unreliable at best, and downright misleading at worst. In the end, it becomes a vicious cycle of tester incompetence compounded when antimalware companies add more junk detections to improve their scores in tests. Building a sample collection in such a way is a sure way for a tester to lose credibility and respect in the industry, and seriously lessens the chances of your ever being trusted by the industry. Undeterred, many simply continue making useless tests, misleading the public, and wasting the time of the anti-malware research community. This section is intended to be a guide to good testing practice.The space constraints mean that it neither discusses the methodology in great depth, nor in a completely compre- hensive fashion. It will, however, discuss the verification of various types of malware, look at common types of tests, examine some commonly encountered problems in testing, and give an overview of the various accepted testing bodies and the types of testing offered. Ultimately, the aim is to show that no single test or certification should be taken as indisputable proof of an anti-malware product's superiority or inferiority in comparison with other such products. A range of results, and most importantly, a consistent record across a range of tests is a far better indicator of usefulness than a focus on a single test or type of test.