BugBopper Challenges the Competition

[BugBopperGuy]

BugBopper has issued three different scanner challenges to Wilders Members: size, speed, and detection rate.

The Size Challenge. Today's bloated scanners take up to 293 Mb on disk, with the average scanner product in one study requiring 75 Mb. We believe that BugBopper has the smallest footprint on disk of any scanner.

BugBopper's unique and innovative scanning method greatly reduces both program size and detection database size, while speeding the scanning process and reducing CPU utilization. Once the first full scan of any machine is completed, BugBopper re-scans at blinding speed, on many machines up to thousands of files per second, allowing a full scan to be completed in a minute or two. What's more, the initial download of "signatures", though only 6 MB or so, typically shrinks to less than 200K after the first full scan.
To win this challenge, simply measure the size of your current scanner on disk, and measure the size of BugBopper on disk after your first scan with BugBopper has completed. Send your findings and comments to Contest@BugBopper.com. If BugBopper is not the smallest, you'll win a free one-year license, or we'll extend your paid license for another year.


The Speed Challenge. A typical scanner can take hours to do a thorough scan of your machine. We believe that BugBopper is the fastest scanner on the market, even in its most thorough mode, often scanning at over 3,000 files per second.

To win this challenge, scan your machine with BugBopper once. Now scan with your favorite scanner, using equivalent settings, and time and record your results. Now scan again with BugBopper, and time and record your results. Send your findings and comments to Contest@BugBopper.com. If BugBopper's second scan is not the fastest, you'll win a free one-year license, or we'll extend your paid license for another year.

The Detection Challenge. The average scanner detects just 62% of malware files in large collections. In your machine, the percentage is probably the same, because scanners identify what they know to be malware, and ignore files they do not know anything about. BugBopper's approach is to suspect files it has not seen, and send them to our lab for instant analysis. As a result, BugBopper's detection rate is higher than any other product. It is the only product, in fact, that can detect and name the 17,000 malware executables that began appearing today.

Here's something for the malware collectors on the Wilders Security Forums. To win this challenge, you'll need to extract your malware collection from whatever archives you use, as BugBopper does not scan inside archives (since only the extracted programs present actual risk). Scan what you've extracted with BugBopper once. (If anything is new to BugBopper, it will be rushed off to our lab for analysis). Now scan with your favorite scanner, using equivalent settings, and record your results. Now scan again with BugBopper (analysis of those uploaded files will now be complete), and record your results. Send your findings and comments to Contest@BugBopper.com. If BugBopper does not have the highest detection rate, you'll win a free one-year license, or we'll extend your paid license for another year.

When you write, be sure to include the name and version of the other scanner. Results will be posted at BugBopper.com (http://BugBopper.com). And I hope there will be some discussion of these outrageous claims here.:dry:

[kjdemuth]

Does that include FP vs actual detections?

[Ibrad]

Oh I like contests since Bugbopper has to have a license can we use Wuzzup to measure the scan speed?

[sg09]

Good one...;)

[lordraiden]

Nice contest.

Is this going to be the killer of the on demand scanners? xD

I wonder why is not possible to see which files are being uploaded, what they need to hide?

Edit: A scan need to upload 1.2 GB of files and you cant see wich files are being uploaded... no thanks!

Seems that they use all this scanner to determine if the file is safe or not, is similar to hitman pro

Scanner Results

Scanner Results

AVG Dirty Dropper.Generic2.FAN
Norman Clean -
CA Clean -
ClamWin Clean -
VirusBuster Clean -
ESET Dirty Win32/HackTool.Patcher.A application
Quick Heal Clean -
Sunbelt Clean -
Final result Dirty Win32/HackTool.Patcher.A application

[CloneRanger]

I installed Wuzzup instead of BugBopper, as your www said it's exactly the same, apart from malware deletion.

-{ Quote: "Originally Posted by BugBopperGuy

We believe that BugBopper has the smallest footprint on disk of any scanner." }-

Here's a contender comparison. Setup_Wuzzup.exe = 2.81 MB - prevxcsifree.exe = 928 KB

221619

-{ Quote: "A typical scanner can take hours to do a thorough scan of your machine. We believe that BugBopper is the fastest scanner on the market, even in its most thorough mode, often scanning at over 3,000 files per second." }-

221620

Gave up as the upload completion time was already over an hour away, and it hadn't even hit all my malware folders yet ;D Plus all the other normal but not so well known files/programs etc. Goodness knows how long that would have taken, or how much bandwith :o

The 9 finds are files i'm aware of, but not running or infecting ;)

I'm NOT saying BugBopper/Wuzzup are **** because i don't believe they are, just posting my observations.

[BugBopperGuy]

-{ Quote: "Does that include FP vs actual detections?" }-

You can make your own rules here, and you can be the judge of the results, and whether you should get a free license.

The best challenge for detections would be to take a vast collection of genuine malware, and see how much each product detects. The best challenge for false alarms might be to take a vast collection of things that were packed non-malware, and see what the products have to say.

I don't think BugBopper has any false alarms if you use our recommended confidence level of 30% as your cutoff.

If you use a large collection, it is very likely that it will contain some files that we've never seen. On the first pass, BugBopper will upload them for analysis, but won't pronounce them good or bad. A few minutes later (usually) you can scan again, and it will have names for all the bad stuff.

But I'd love to hear about the test(s) you devise, and your results. One of us will be surprised.

[BugBopperGuy]

-{ Quote: "Oh I like contests since Bugbopper has to have a license can we use Wuzzup to measure the scan speed?" }-

Yup. They should have identical scan speeds.

Also: you don't need a license to scan with BugBopper -- just to quarantine and remove.

[BugBopperGuy]

-{ Quote: "Good one...;)" }-

I'm looking forward to hearing your report!

[Ibrad]

How long do we have to do this? Will it be open for a few days so I can do this on Monday because my slow internet speed which mean it may take a while to upload files to the BugBopper cloud.

[BugBopperGuy]

-{ Quote: "I wonder why is not possible to see which files are being uploaded, what they need to hide?" }-

We didn't mean to hide anything at all. I was trying to avoid clutter and excess detail.

I would be happy to work out a proposal for a change in BugBopper to display the list of suspect executables we are uploading. But would that not be sufficient -- would you want to be able to review the list first, and only allow certain files to be uploaded?

[BugBopperGuy]

-{ Quote: "How long do we have to do this? Will it be open for a few days so I can do this on Monday because my slow internet speed which mean it may take a while to upload files to the BugBopper cloud." }-

Absolutely. Take all week if you want.

[lordraiden]

-{ Quote: "We didn't mean to hide anything at all. I was trying to avoid clutter and excess detail.

I would be happy to work out a proposal for a change in BugBopper to display the list of suspect executables we are uploading. But would that not be sufficient -- would you want to be able to review the list first, and only allow certain files to be uploaded?" }-

Take a look to the interface of Comodo Cloud scanner, and copy it.
http://forums.comodo.com/news-announcements-feedback-ccs/comodo-cloud-scanner-20-final-release-t60041.0.html

Where I can modify the kind of file that are going to be uploaded? Anyway I think that the user need to know about every single file uploaded and the veredict of your scanner.

[BugBopperGuy]

-{ Quote: "Here's a contender comparison. Setup_Wuzzup.exe = 2.81 MB - prevxcsifree.exe = 928 KB" }-

You may have won. Can you suggest a download link that works? (Google seems to be directing me to dysfunctional sites), I'll give this a try.

-{ Quote: "Gave up as the upload completion time was already over an hour away, and it hadn't even hit all my malware folders yet ;D Plus all the other normal but not so well known files/programs etc. Goodness knows how long that would have taken..." }-

-{ Quote: "... To win this challenge, scan your machine with BugBopper once. Now scan with your favorite scanner, using equivalent settings, and time and record your results. Now scan again with BugBopper, and time and record your results. Send your findings and comments to Contest@BugBopper.com. If BugBopper's second scan is not the fastest, you'll win a free one-year license, or we'll extend your paid license for another year..." }-

The time penalty of any scanner accumulates over your uses of that scanner. If your favorite scanner takes 2 hours with each scan, and you scan 20 times a year, your cost is 40 hours. With BugBopper, your first scan, including upload times, might be 2 hours or more... but subsequent scans will usually take just a few minutes. With 20 BugBopper scans a year, your costs are so low you'll be able to afford to scan more often.

I think it is worth doing one complete scan, then scanning again to see how long it takes this time.

[lordraiden]

-{ Quote: "You may have won. Can you suggest a download link that works? (Google seems to be directing me to dysfunctional sites), I'll give this a try.
" }-

www.prevx.com/facebook

[CloneRanger]

@ BugBopperGuy

Prevx 3 - http://info.prevx.com/downloadprevx.asp

The link lordraiden gave is for PSOL which is different to the one i quoted.

I may try another scan at some point, but not right now ;)

[lordraiden]

-{ Quote: "@ BugBopperGuy

Prevx 3 - http://info.prevx.com/downloadprevx.asp

The link lordraiden gave is for PSOL which is different to the one i quoted.

I may try another scan at some point, but not right now ;)" }-

The scann time btw the free version and the paid one of prevx must be the same.
And as far as I know prevx does not have any way to trial their paid products.

[CloneRanger]

@ lordraiden

Hi,

Prevx 3 is free, unless you register and turn it into a paid version. The only difference is the free won't clean up everything, but it will detect both statically and dynamically exactly the same malware it finds.

Same difference between Wuzzup and BugBopper.

Facebook PSOL is not the same as Prevx 3.

[acr1965]

Are results of scans going to be posted here? I thought MDL would send a test bed of zero day malware upon request- like 1,100 malwares. Can anyone confirm this?

Also, what about a real time detection challenge in addition to the on demand scan?

[andylau]

Why do a scan with BugBopper will make its size smaller?;D

[sg09]

-{ Quote: "I'm looking forward to hearing your report!" }-
Thank you...:) But I doubt if I could do any test now as I am very much busy this days...:'(
Anyway I have no doubt that Bugbopper will win in most cases... All the best to it...:)
And to all guys, don't forget to scan with all extensions during detection tests.

[BugBopperGuy]

-{ Quote: "Here's a contender comparison. Setup_Wuzzup.exe = 2.81 MB - prevxcsifree.exe = 928 KB" }-

Not sure I've done what you were expecting. I just installed the free Prevx, and on disk it looks 2 Mb bigger than BugBopper:

Prevx.exe: 6,394,368 bytes.

BugBopper directory, including BugBopper.exe: 3,414,421 bytes.
Wuzzup.db (scan strings for BugBopper): 687,104 (size varies)
Total size for BugBopper directory+database: 4,101,525.

Looks to me like BugBopper is 2/3 the size of Prevx. Did I get this wrong?

[BugBopperGuy]

-{ Quote: "Are results of scans going to be posted here? I thought MDL would send a test bed of zero day malware upon request- like 1,100 malwares. Can anyone confirm this?" }-
Who is MDL?

-{ Quote: "Also, what about a real time detection challenge in addition to the on demand scan?" }-
We'll have real-time soon, but don't have it now, so everyone else wins.

[Ibrad]

MDL + Malware Domains List :)

[buckslayr]

-{ Quote: "Who is MDL?


We'll have real-time soon, but don't have it now, so everyone else wins." }-

So bugbopper will be a complete solution when you add realtime protection or will it be more similar to mbam?

[acr1965]

-{ Quote: "Who is MDL?
" }-

~ Removed URL to Malware List Site as per Policy (http://www.wilderssecurity.com/tos.php) - BugBopper can google it, if interested - JRViejo ~

[CloneRanger]

-{ Quote: "Originally Posted by BugBopperGuy

I just installed the free Prevx, and on disk it looks 2 Mb bigger than BugBopper:" }-

On disk, you're correct ;) i was looking at the install file sizes - Setup_Wuzzup.exe = 2.81 MB - prevxcsifree.exe = 928 KB = you win on that. So what do i owe you :D

To add to suggestions.

*

Listing of ALL files/size/locations for upload, Before uploading.

Right click to remove any from uploading.

Estimated time for uploading.

Option to pause with continue after a set time.

Option to delay uploading for eg, via scheduling and/or timer, and/or by so many Mbytes per upload.

You might not have to upload EVERY file even for first timers. If your app took an MD5 etc of each detect it could compare the found local MD5's with those on your server = saving Lots of our/your time/bandwith = :thumb: Only the unknowns would then be flagged for uploading = :thumb:

*

Not everybody has broadband, and even if they do it might not always be super fast.

My browsing kept failing to connect whilst the partial uploads were taking place, which is one of the reasons i stopped it.

Regards.

[Fajo]

As for scan speed.. Please beat this..

A Full system scan with Prevx was 18.4 Min (This includes my 500Gig / 120gigs Free Backup Drive and my 500Gig / 180ish Gigs free Laptop HD) After the full scan this is the scan time of the drive. I'm sorry I wont try BugBopper, Mainly because no way in hell would I want to see how much of the data that it would want to uploaded to your servers. I'm sure I would be over the 10gig mark LONG before I even hit my malware pile which would add a nice chunk to that. :doubt:

This is after a full system scan.
221653

[lordraiden]

-{ Quote: "As for scan speed.. Please beat this..

A Full system scan with Prevx was 18.4 Min (This includes my 500Gig / 120gigs Free Backup Drive and my 500Gig / 180ish Gigs free Laptop HD) After the full scan this is the scan time of the drive. I'm sorry I wont try BugBopper, Mainly because no way in hell would I want to see how much of the data that it would want to uploaded to your servers. I'm sure I would be over the 10gig mark LONG before I even hit my malware pile which would add a nice chunk to that. :doubt:

This is after a full system scan.
221653" }-

Only 13260 files scanned??

[Inspector Clouseau]

It doesn't detect ANY Virut Variant. Virut is one of the most common virus infections and is listed ItW. None of the other trojans (around 500.000 mixed samples) were detected; most of them are just marked as unknown and ready for upload.

[AvinashR]

-{ Quote: "It doesn't detect ANY Virut Variant. Virut is one of the most common virus infections and is listed ItW. None of the other trojans (around 500.000 mixed samples) were detected; most of them are just marked as unknown and ready for upload." }-

Oops, i guess u used samples from your own database... I guess i should throw my 100,000 Samples now ... :)

[MrBrian]

-{ Quote: "
You might not have to upload EVERY file even for first timers. If your app took an MD5 etc of each detect it could compare the found local MD5's with those on your server." }-

I think it already does compute hashes - the 'suspects' are the unknown files being uploaded.

[Fajo]

-{ Quote: "Only 13260 files scanned??" }-


Yes. Once you do a full scan of the drive it whitelists Known good files and only checks them again if it changes. This is the same way ALOT of AV's do it now, and from I read this one works the same way after it's initial scan.

[bellgamin]

-{ Quote: "It doesn't detect ANY Virut Variant. Virut is one of the most common virus infections and is listed ItW. None of the other trojans (around 500.000 mixed samples) were detected; most of them are just marked as unknown and ready for upload." }-
Hola Mike-sensei I have missed you. Welcome back! (By the way, I always wanted to see a Maidenhead -- great scenery, I'll wager.)

Your comment was a bit too cryptic for my tiny brain to comprehend. Did you actually test Bugbopper against 500,000 malware samples? If so, did you allow Bugbopper to upload the unknowns?

[TonyW]

-{ Quote: "Your comment was a bit too cryptic for my tiny brain to comprehend. Did you actually test Bugbopper against 500,000 malware samples? If so, did you allow Bugbopper to upload the unknowns?" }-From what I read, I believe what he was saying is that the 500,000 mixed samples he tested against were not detected, but were marked as unknown and ready to be uploaded. Whether he actually allowed them to be uploaded I don't know.

[qakbot]

-{ Quote: "BugBopper's detection rate is higher than any other product. " }-

I think I've read enough :-) Seriously. Not a month goes by when there isn't a new upstart company that comes up with a new anti-malware that is faster and more effective than everyone else. This is getting a bit ridiculous. We all appreciate innovation, but when you make comments like this, you know you are going to get taken down.

Reminds of a dumbo that said "Macs can't be hacked".

[bellgamin]

-{ Quote: "Reminds of a dumbo that said "Macs can't be hacked"." }-Macs always make me hack. And puke. But Happy Meals are nice (I like the toys).

But seriously -- I think the statement that distresses you was made in the form of a challenge -- an intentionally over-stated comment that was designed to give rise to discussion & debate.

[Fajo]

-{ Quote: "Macs always make me hack. And puke. But Happy Meals are nice (I like the toys).

But seriously -- I think the statement that distresses you was made in the form of a challenge -- an intentionally over-stated comment that was designed to give rise to discussion & debate." }-

Yes, I agree with this statement to a point. But for there to be a challenge there also has to be something to back it up, as of right now all I see is words and no physical evidence to support it. But then again alot of AV company's try to use this tactic to get attention, Normally it just blows up in there face when ever it's challenged.

Also something else that bugs me about this challenge, if I found a product better then this one why the hell would I want a free license to this product ? would we not want the better product ? In a way to me it makes no sense.

[bellgamin]

-{ Quote: "if I found a product better then this one why the hell would I want a free license to this product ? would we not want the better product ? In a way to me it makes no sense." }-
It makes sense to me. If others folks test BB against other security apps, because of lust for a free license, then I shall gather possibly valuable information from their efforts -- & that is true whether they find that BB is all that it claims to be, OR they discover that some other security app looks to be even better.

Release the hounds! 8) ;) ;D

[BugBopperGuy]

-{ Quote: "So bugbopper will be a complete solution when you add realtime protection or will it be more similar to mbam?" }-

I am not sure where we will want to stop. I don't like KitchenSinkware, and don't think I ever want to be connected to a product that claims to do everything but weighs 4,000 pounds. I don't mind checking under the bed for malware, though. We'll see.

[BugBopperGuy]

-{ Quote: "On disk, you're correct ;) i was looking at the install file sizes - Setup_Wuzzup.exe = 2.81 MB - prevxcsifree.exe = 928 KB = you win on that. So what do i owe you :D" }-
8) I owe you for all the good suggestions here. Thanks. And keep them coming!

-{ Quote: "
To add to suggestions.

*

Listing of ALL files/size/locations for upload, Before uploading.

Right click to remove any from uploading.

Estimated time for uploading.

Option to pause with continue after a set time.

Option to delay uploading for eg, via scheduling and/or timer, and/or by so many Mbytes per upload.
" }-

I think these will all be in our next release. At least they are all in our list of specs for it.

-{ Quote: "
You might not have to upload EVERY file even for first timers. If your app took an MD5 etc of each detect it could compare the found local MD5's with those on your server = saving Lots of our/your time/bandwith = :thumb: Only the unknowns would then be flagged for uploading = :thumb: " }-

In fact, we only upload a file if we've never seen it before. Uploading the same file twice doesn't do anyone any good. Our early adopters, like you, sometimes have quite a few files we've never seen, but this is improving as our user base increases.

[BugBopperGuy]

-{ Quote: "It doesn't detect ANY Virut Variant. Virut is one of the most common virus infections and is listed ItW. None of the other trojans (around 500.000 mixed samples) were detected; most of them are just marked as unknown and ready for upload." }-

Well, Inspector... I would be very interested in detecting 100% of your samples, and very willing to do the analysis in our lab that made that possible. If you would be willing to send the samples via FTP, or if you would be willing to let me retrieve them via FTP, I'll push them to the top of the analysis queue, and you won't need to let BugBopper upload anything from these directories. Then you'll see how precisely we name things, and how fast we go.

You may contact me privately at Wilders, or at David@BugBopper.com I hope you will.

[BugBopperGuy]

-{ Quote: "Oops, i guess u used samples from your own database... I guess i should throw my 100,000 Samples now ... :)" }-

Hi, AvinashR,

I'm keen to analyze as many malware samples as we possibly can, to speed our execution time when scanning collections. If you are willing to contact me with a PM here, or by email at David@BugBopper.com, perhaps we can discuss an FTP arrangement.

[Ibrad]

@BugBopperGuy

Just a note your file version and product version info is not filled out in file properties. Just in case they were forgotten to be filled out, I noticed it when my firewall alerted my for outbound connections.

[BugBopperGuy]

-{ Quote: "I think it already does compute hashes - the 'suspects' are the unknown files being uploaded." }-

That is right. We only upload a given file once. Still, there are lots of files out there, and at the moment, we only know the details of about 8.6 million files... so there will be lots of unknowns on their way to our lab.

[BugBopperGuy]

-{ Quote: "I think I've read enough :-) Seriously. Not a month goes by when there isn't a new upstart company that comes up with a new anti-malware that is faster and more effective than everyone else. This is getting a bit ridiculous. We all appreciate innovation, but when you make comments like this, you know you are going to get taken down.

Reminds of a dumbo that said "Macs can't be hacked"." }-

The world is full of folks that say dumb things. I'm certainly on that list. But there is a little gap between people who make stuff up, and people who issue a public challenge like I did. And a big gap between people who will believe anything and people who won't even do an experiment to see if something might be true.

But that's why we put the challenge out there.

No one has yet reported a product that is smaller on disk, has a faster second scan, or detects more. I'm waiting.

My claim about detection rate pertains only to your second scan of a file and it gives us a chance to analyze the file and find malware -- or not. What is preposterous about that notion?

You can let it scan your collection at night, or whenever you aren't using the machine. I can't see the difficulty in that. And you can try it by just scanning 10 files from your collection, then coming back in an hour, and scanning those 10 files again.

[BugBopperGuy]

-{ Quote: "@BugBopperGuy

Just a note your file version and product version info is not filled out in file properties. Just in case they were forgotten to be filled out, I noticed it when my firewall alerted my for outbound connections." }-

Do you mean file properties, found with a right-click on the file? Here's what I see with our latest BugBopper:
221801

[trjam]

BBG, I am a believer. no one would be so foolish to make the claim and not be confident enough to back it up.

lord aia hste typing on a netbook>:(

[BugBopperGuy]

-{ Quote: "Yes, I agree with this statement to a point. But for there to be a challenge there also has to be something to back it up, as of right now all I see is words and no physical evidence to support it." }-

Size was easy for me to measure, and things turned out just fine for our challenge: Wuzzup was the smallest of 122 products compared. (see here (http://www.bugbopper.com/Support/KnowledgeBase/ProductFootprints.asp)). So there's a start. But maybe you know of a product that is smaller on disk. Presto. Provide that product name and size, and you have a license.

If we did a dozen "studies" like this (http://www.bugbopper.com/Support/KnowledgeBase/ProductFootprints.asp), would the world believe us then? Nah.

That's why the challenge.

[Ibrad]

I was talking about the setup file.

[BugBopperGuy]

-{ Quote: "I was talking about the setup file." }-

OK, and thanks!

I'm on the case.

[Fajo]

-{ Quote: "Size was easy for me to measure, and things turned out just fine for our challenge: Wuzzup was the smallest of 122 products compared. (see here (http://www.bugbopper.com/Support/KnowledgeBase/ProductFootprints.asp)). So there's a start. But maybe you know of a product that is smaller on disk. Presto. Provide that product name and size, and you have a license.

If we did a dozen "studies" like this (http://www.bugbopper.com/Support/KnowledgeBase/ProductFootprints.asp), would the world believe us then? Nah.

That's why the challenge." }-

What is the point of being the smallest if you can find a better product ? I don't know about you but 500k VS lets say 20 megs makes no diff today in World of 500+ Gig drives even in Laptops. Hell my Oldest laptop still has a 160gig HD.

I really have no idea why or how this helps your product or even makes it a better product. The damn AV could take 200 Megs on my drive as LONG as it don't slow down the computer. Now if this was 1999 then Yes I would understand, But now adays it's seems like grasping at straws.

How about we do a comparison of Lowest impact on the System and over all CPU, Memory and other resource usage, then you might have a real challenge. Basically what I'm getting at is your trying to have people judge a book by its cover instead of whats really under the hood.

[pbust]

-{ Quote: "My claim about detection rate pertains only to your second scan of a file and it gives us a chance to analyze the file and find malware -- or not. What is preposterous about that notion?" }-
The fact that if you don't detect it the first time it is scanned, the malware will be running and already infecting the user.

What's the point of this type of protection if every malware you entounter you are going to allow the user to execute it unless s/he scans it twice?

[lordraiden]

-{ Quote: "The fact that if you don't detect it the first time it is scanned, the malware will be running and already infecting the user.

What's the point of this type of protection if every malware you entounter you are going to allow the user to execute it unless s/he scans it twice?" }-

Not always you are going to need scan twice (if you scann and nothing is uploaded), also since the results a usually ready in less than 1 hour, and the scann times are less than 5 min after the first one I dont see a big problem.

A full scan with any AV can take at least 2 hours (restart the pc and maybe re-scan the pc), well, in 1 hour you can make 2, 3 or 4 scans with BB and fix the problem faster than with any AV.

[wtsinnc]

-{ Quote: "What is the point of being the smallest if you can find a better product ? I don't know about you but 500k VS lets say 20 megs makes no diff today in World of 500+ Gig drives even in Laptops. Hell my Oldest laptop still has a 160gig HD.

I really have no idea why or how this helps your product or even makes it a better product. The damn AV could take 200 Megs on my drive as LONG as it don't slow down the computer. Now if this was 1999 then Yes I would understand, But now adays it's seems like grasping at straws.

How about we do a comparison of Lowest impact on the System and over all CPU, Memory and other resource usage, then you might have a real challenge. Basically what I'm getting at is your trying to have people judge a book by its cover instead of whats really under the hood." }-


I totally agree !

Like many here I prefer to keep away from the ridiculously bloated applications, but much more than that I want an application that performs at a consistently high level and doesn't create a whole new set of problems.

To market any software application claiming it's small footprint is an inherent advantage is an idiotic approach unless that product also has excellent and bug-free performance comparable to it's competition.

So give us what we're looking for and you will become a player.
Until then, the small size of your product simply means there's less to uninstall.

[BugBopperGuy]

-{ Quote: "What is the point of being the smallest if you can find a better product ? I don't know about you but 500k VS lets say 20 megs makes no diff today in World of 500+ Gig drives even in Laptops. Hell my Oldest laptop still has a 160gig HD.

I really have no idea why or how this helps your product or even makes it a better product. The damn AV could take 200 Megs on my drive as LONG as it don't slow down the computer. Now if this was 1999 then Yes I would understand, But now adays it's seems like grasping at straws.

How about we do a comparison of Lowest impact on the System and over all CPU, Memory and other resource usage, then you might have a real challenge. Basically what I'm getting at is your trying to have people judge a book by its cover instead of whats really under the hood." }-

Understand that I'm an old guy, from the days when small was beautiful when it came to code. I knew one guy who created a mailing list program in 56 bytes in APL, and got an A in the course. But that was when a 5 Mb drive might sell for $5,000. Today, terabytes are nearly free, so of course small is beautiful only to coders from the old school.

I completely agree that other measures of greatness are more important. I think the perfect anti-malware scanner would run like the wind, find every single malware -- no matter how hidden or stealth or new, never ever false alarm, etc. etc. We are agreed on that. There does not seem to be any perfection in any of our products.

The real hard part in any product testing is finding testing methods that are perceived as unbiased, of product features widely believed to be important, that are easy to implement, that are extensible to other products as they come along. And of course, a good method used by an organization that doesn't have a user's credibility produces a non-credible result -- unless it fits with your expectations. We have so many testers simply because we don't have tests and testers that meet these criteria. For sure, there is no test of our own product that I could do that would be widely believed -- hence my dare to others to do their own tests.

There is a well-known product that scored 100% in Virus Bulletin tests and NCSA tests of "in the wild". I created a 2 byte file in notepad, and named it "SatanBug", and this product would find the SatanBug virus in the file. If the file was renamed, it would not find any problem. A curious fact, but products must pass tests to survive. I can't blame that vendor for wanting to survive, but I had lots of customers who had expensive site licenses for their product -- and had SatanBug -- and while they thought the virus kept "coming back", I finally figured out that it was only being partially detected.

My goal in the challenge was to try to get people to test BugBopper, or include it in their ongoing tests. If we aren't as good as other scanners in ANY way, we want to know, and we want to correct it.

[BugBopperGuy]

-{ Quote: "The fact that if you don't detect it the first time it is scanned, the malware will be running and already infecting the user.

What's the point of this type of protection if every malware you entounter you are going to allow the user to execute it unless s/he scans it twice?" }-

When new malware reaches users, only one user somewhere in the world needs to upload the suspect. Once we've analyzed it, we never need to see another copy of that file. In our early days, this might be tough on users with big drives and slow bandwidth, but if we can live through these times, the situation will improve. As the number of BugBopper users increases, the number of files that we will need to look at from each new machine will decrease.

[malexous]

MalAware (http://www.emsisoft.com/en/software/malaware/) is a smaller scanner.

[BugBopperGuy]

-{ Quote: "MalAware (http://www.emsisoft.com/en/software/malaware/) is a smaller scanner." }-

You are right! I had not heard of it before, but MalAware is smaller. Fortunately, Fajo has talked us all out of caring about size;)

You win a free one-year license to BugBopper. Please drop an email to Jim at Jim@BugBopper.com and he'll set you up with a license.

For all: I must declare the size competition over. Malexous has won it.