Anybody ran PrevX Edge against the Comodo test?

[Rivalen]

I only run trial version, but maybe someone who has payed version could check what Edge can do.

Maybe PrevXHelp can do the test themselves and report back here?

Best Regards

[trjam]

and what will that tell you? That the product is good or bad, or the test.;)

[Rivalen]

Well, you tell me.

On Line Armor faired well and I have only heard that 2 out of 34 where doubted, but what do I know. Comodo itself I am not interested in. It popups to make a guy crazy and slows down surfing to - for me at last. Tried it over a year ago.

If someone ran Edge against it and Edge failed too much I guess EdgeHelp would explain if its the test or their software or both that need to be adjusted.

Best Regards

[Pedro]

It will fail, since it's a test. Prevx and Threatfire are programs made to detect malicious software. They're not tripwires.

[rolarocka]

That test is good for "classic" hips not behaviour blockers.

[PrevxHelp]

-{ Quote: "It will fail, since it's a test. Prevx and Threatfire are programs made to detect malicious software. They're not tripwires." }-

This is correct, and reflects our stance on leaktests. We block real malicious software employing the techniques outlined by leaktests but not leaktests by themselves as they exhibit no where near the same behavior as real malware.

[Rivalen]

So where is Edge tested then? Just interested in beeing able to compare Edge to others.

Best Regards

[PrevxHelp]

-{ Quote: "So where is Edge tested then? Just interested in beeing able to compare Edge to others.

Best Regards" }-

Edge is a nontrivial product to compare to other products. Currently I'm unaware of any official tests but some of the users here have done some small-scale tests finding a 90% detection rate with heuristics and other positive results (if you wade through the mass of the "Introducing" thread ;D)

[Rivalen]

How shall the ordinary user evaluate that against Antvir getting around 99% on sigs and around 70% on heuristics at AV Comparatives if I remember correctly.

Best Regards

[PrevxHelp]

-{ Quote: "How shall the ordinary user evaluate that against Antvir getting around 99% on sigs and around 70% on heuristics at AV Comparatives if I remember correctly.

Best Regards" }-

This is like comparing apples to oranges - every AV will behave differently on different test sets. The test which I'm referring to within the thread was done on a couple hundred samples so it is not as statistically significant as AV Comparatives' million+ sample tests.

However, our goal is not to find 100% of pieces of malware ever created since 1980 but rather to find the malware which other AVs do not. Because of this, standard AV tests over gigantic sample sets will not accurately test Edge's protection against threats which users actually see today. Also, current testing methodology does not test the real benefit of Edge, which lies in the behavioral analysis and heuristics that can only be employed when a program is attempting to load. So, while one may be able to derive an approximation of the effectiveness of Edge against certain types of samples by running on-demand scans, these detection rates will not correctly reflect what is truly seen in the wild, on real infections.

[Pedro]

@PrevxHelp: i can't really say if it's good or not, but i read interesting things here - New test from PC Security Labs (http://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?p=1345972#post1345972)
-{ Quote: "(...)
Dynamic testing means that we will run the samples static testing(on-demand testing) missing to do the real infection to the computer to test the defense ability of each AV products. (...)" }-
If you find it a good test - i really can't tell or have the time to read about it- perhaps you could ask to be tested.

[PrevxHelp]

-{ Quote: "If you find it a good test - i really can't tell or have the time to read about it- perhaps you could ask to be tested." }-

Thanks for the link :) I'll ask around and see if we are interested/willing.