SSUpdater.com Anti-Malware test

http://ssupdater.com/modules/Forums/...showtopic=5508

[Someone]

Um... SSupdater isn't exactly a trustworthy source.

[Retadpuss]

Originally Posted by Someone

Um... SSupdater isn't exactly a trustworthy source.

The test is perfectly valid and the results are accurate.

The results seem to match those of several other tests published.

Great test.

[Saraceno]

It is similar results to some recent tests floating around.

Avira, a-squared, G-Data, Avast, Kaspersky, Norton. Not much between many of them.

Others including, Nod, Comodo, McAfee, BitDefender, F-Secure, AVG, Panda, very similar results and close to the top. Vipre making significant gains, compared to their last test.

Keep it mind, just one test, not the definitive test to end all tests.

Few stupid comments there about MBAM, but most here know what it is used for (removing rogue programs that aren't considered your typical viruses), so if you like MBAM, don't take the bait.

[risl]

Dr.Web seems to be completely falling out. Products like "Clam" "Viruskeeper" etc. and so on have started to score better in all tests.

[Retadpuss]

I believe MBAM was included in the test as the student who makes MBAM stated in thie forum that "Our product is a full anti-malware tool " - It is marketed as a full AM on their website as well - no mention that you need a full AM.

I think once they stop marketing the product in this misleading way, people will stop testing it as a full AM and sites will stop listing it as a rogue. (they will need to stop their developers spamming boards with comments promoting the product as well without revealing their true identity - as I understand this sort of marketing activity is enough to have a product classified as a rogue)

[maymoons]

Keep it mind, just one test, not the definitive test to end all tests.

i with you.

another test, similar result.

[Saraceno]

Retadpuss, respect your views.

I think it all depends on a user's situation. How a program has helped them, regardless of tests, is how we form an opinion.

I started a post recently about a friend who compulsively downloads problem programs which slow down his system. One program recently was using a lot of CPU, creating fake alerts, slowing down the user's system etc. The free version of Prevx identified the program, and an upload to VirusTotal revealed it was the only program to identify the file. MBAM, isn't on VT, but it identified the program as rogue, found all the registry entries, and removed it in a quick scan. So, in my experience, it does seem to remove problem files not considered your typical 'virus'.

On another note, hopefully sites don't test Prevx as just an on-demand scanner, as it would probably return an average result. But it seems to kick some serious @ss when you attempt to install problem files.

Yes, we all know the story about Malwarebytes' Anti-Rogueware ..

[raven211]

How would the results of avast! Professional Edition compare to Home Edition only? The only real difference I would see would be the Script Blocker. BTW... does anyone know what it does - how is its operation? As I'm really liking the product, I'm considering buying a license for it, so it would be good information to know.

[Someone]

Originally Posted by Retadpuss

The test is perfectly valid and the results are accurate.

The results seem to match those of several other tests published.

Great test.

I'm really confused.
Aren't they the same guys who published this test?

[Retadpuss]

Originally Posted by Someone

I'm really confused.
Aren't they the same guys who published this test?

Indeed, they are. Not confusing at all!

[Someone]

Originally Posted by Retadpuss

Indeed, they are. Not confusing at all!

Well...then aren't they of rather dubious reputation?

[lordpake]

Originally Posted by Someone

Well...then aren't they of rather dubious reputation?

Yes, they are

[Retadpuss]

Originally Posted by Someone

Well...then aren't they of rather dubious reputation?

Dubious, in what way? The test is well conducted, the samples are all real world malware and the results are valid and accurate. The results, as has been pointed out, match those published elsewhere.

If you have any real evidence to show any faults with the tests, please let us all know. If you dont have any evidence, you cant criticise the results.

Im sure the usual peeople (we all know who they are) will come along soon and make false unfounded criticisms of the test because a certain product came last, but please, the rest of us in the real security community - dont indulge them!

[andyman35]

Originally Posted by Retadpuss

Dubious, in what way? The test is well conducted, the samples are all real world malware and the results are valid and accurate. The results, as has been pointed out, match those published elsewhere.

If you have any real evidence to show any faults with the tests, please let us all know. If you dont have any evidence, you cant criticise the results.

Im sure the usual peeople (we all know who they are) will come along soon and make false unfounded criticisms of the test because a certain product came last, but please, the rest of us in the real security community - dont indulge them!

Whether or not the tests are accurate I couldn't say but the "dubious nature" reputation was earned by the abusive and unprofessional manner shown by the ones running that site,toward certain products.Hardly the hallmark of unbiased,disinterested testing.

[Saraceno]

I've separated the guys who run the test, from the test itself. I just look at the results.

In all fairness, it's a large collection of malware they've collected.

And 'if' the guys running it are douche-bags, not saying they are, but if they are, you can't dispute that they've spent considerable un-paid time on the testing, and are proud of their work.

I just look at it as general reading. Won't change what I use, but for some people, it will - these people will however usually change programs after every test they read.

[geko]

Originally Posted by Saraceno

Retadpuss, respect your views.

I think it all depends on a user's situation. How a program has helped them, regardless of tests, is how we form an opinion.

I started a post recently about a friend who compulsively downloads problem programs which slow down his system. One program recently was using a lot of CPU, creating fake alerts, slowing down the user's system etc. The free version of Prevx identified the program, and an upload to VirusTotal revealed it was the only program to identify the file. MBAM, isn't on VT, but it identified the program as rogue, found all the registry entries, and removed it in a quick scan. So, in my experience, it does seem to remove problem files not considered your typical 'virus'.

On another note, hopefully sites don't test Prevx as just an on-demand scanner, as it would probably return an average result. But it seems to kick some serious @ss when you attempt to install problem files.

If it depends on the users situation on how a program has helped, all I can say is that MBAM didnt help at all to clean up a PC that was infected.

Hey, SpyBot did and its free, a-squared did and its free, avira did and its free, avast did and its free.

Havent seen any use to MBAM, but I'm sure some have. For something it has to be useful, I hope, hahaha.

I'm sure of something, its not an antimalware program. Maybe a 'mini-mini' -antimalware program.

[Someone]

Originally Posted by Retadpuss

Dubious, in what way? The test is well conducted, the samples are all real world malware and the results are valid and accurate. The results, as has been pointed out, match those published elsewhere.

If you have any real evidence to show any faults with the tests, please let us all know. If you dont have any evidence, you cant criticise the results.

Im sure the usual peeople (we all know who they are) will come along soon and make false unfounded criticisms of the test because a certain product came last, but please, the rest of us in the real security community - dont indulge them!

Anyone who goes around attacking various security vendors in a very immature fashion is dubious. The burden of proof is on them to prove that they are trustworthy, and from what I can see they haven't done that.

Anyway, how is the test well conducted? How is malware that is over 16 months old real-world?

[sded]

Most of the "Great Comodo Fiasco" with SSUpdater has been redacted in the forum there, but still some residue like http://forums.comodo.com/empty-t33081.0.html . Melih invited SSUpdater to the Comodo forum to discuss their AV testing, which was probably the first showing CAVS favorably. Threads there (since mostly removed) discussed SSUpdater results lack of credibility, and also allegations that they were providing links to Cracks/Keygens for the security software listed/reviewed on their site. MBAM was vilified on the SSUpdater site when MBAM complained to the SSUpdater ISP about the MBAM keygens and got the site taken down, so SSUpdater had to go find another ISP. Not surprising they would still attack MBAM every chance. Best quote from SSUpdater leadership: "We don't care now which side of the law we are on.". But maybe things are all reformed since the January 2009 thread above. At least most of the evidence has been suppressed from the earlier issues.

[fcukdat]

Originally Posted by sded

Threads there (since mostly removed) discussed SSUpdater results lack of credibility, and also allegations that they were providing links to Cracks/Keygens for the security software listed/reviewed on their site. MBAM was vilified on the SSUpdater site when MBAM complained to the SSUpdater ISP about the MBAM keygens and got the site taken down, so SSUpdater had to go find another ISP. Not surprising they would still attack MBAM every chance.

Here lies the absolute truth behind the trust worthiness of that website and motives behind constant rubbishing of MBAM at every opportunity

It's a pity that some folk's believe all that the read(and post as if fact) but thankfully this kind of FUD dose'nt spread too far or cut it in the real world

Hey if MBAM was *Rogue* or ineffectual in the realworld dealing with malware then they would'nt be managing weekly downloads in access of 300,000+ @ Download.com
http://download.cnet.com/windows/


Oh my was over 400K+ this week

Yet again contrived test and realworld experiences dont match up.

To all the nay sayers(& shills alike) then if MBAM is really that bad at dealing with malware why is it one of the most commonly used tools in the help forums?

In all theories according to these results all these expert help forums have got it all wrong,they should be downloading AntiVirus A, B or C to do the job since they are ment to be able to detect many fold more malware samples.

The truth is the expert help forums have not got it wrong and the tools(softwares) they use are for a reason because they are more effective in real world infection scenario's detecting and dealing with live malware.

[Retadpuss]

How many copies of MBAM have you sold?

Originally Posted by fcukdat

Here lies the absolute truth behind the trust worthiness of that website and motives behind constant rubbishing of MBAM at every opportunity

It's a pity that some folk's believe all that the read(and post as if fact) but thankfully this kind of FUD dose'nt spread too far or cut it in the real world

Hey if MBAM was *Rogue* or ineffectual in the realworld dealing with malware then they would'nt be managing weekly downloads in access of 300,000+ @ Download.com
http://download.cnet.com/windows/
Attachment 209079

Oh my was over 400K+ this week

Yet again contrived test and realworld experiences dont match up.

To all the nay sayers(& shills alike) then if MBAM is really that bad at dealing with malware why is it one of the most commonly used tools in the help forums?

In all theories according to these results all these expert help forums have got it all wrong,they should be downloading AntiVirus A, B or C to do the job since they are ment to be able to detect many fold more malware samples.

The truth is the expert help forums have not got it wrong and the tools(softwares) they use are for a reason because they are more effective in real world infection scenario's detecting and dealing with live malware.

[TonyKlein]

Originally Posted by fcukdat

To all the nay sayers(& shills alike) then if MBAM is really that bad at dealing with malware why is it one of the most commonly used tools in the help forums?

I can only second that; it is probably the most used all-round antimalware tool recommended by helpers/experts at the majority of malware removal forums, and it is so for a reason: effectiveness...

Interestingly, for the exact same reason there are numerous examples of staff at Symantec, Avira and other AV product forums recommending MBAM to help remove particularly stubborn malware.

For example, here are two threads from the Avira forum:

http://forum.avira.com/wbb/index.php...threadID=86648
http://forum.avira.com/wbb/index.php...threadID=87488

That said, I run Antivir Premium on most of my machines myself, and I'm extremely happy with it, but this just goes to prove that good AS/AM software, and that most certainly includes MBAM, can be a useful addition to any AV.

[geko]

Originally Posted by fcukdat

Here lies the absolute truth behind the trust worthiness of that website and motives behind constant rubbishing of MBAM at every opportunity

It's a pity that some folk's believe all that the read(and post as if fact) but thankfully this kind of FUD dose'nt spread too far or cut it in the real world

Hey if MBAM was *Rogue* or ineffectual in the realworld dealing with malware then they would'nt be managing weekly downloads in access of 300,000+ @ Download.com

Oh my was over 400K+ this week

Yet again contrived test and realworld experiences dont match up.

To all the nay sayers(& shills alike) then if MBAM is really that bad at dealing with malware why is it one of the most commonly used tools in the help forums?

In all theories according to these results all these expert help forums have got it all wrong,they should be downloading AntiVirus A, B or C to do the job since they are ment to be able to detect many fold more malware samples.

The truth is the expert help forums have not got it wrong and the tools(softwares) they use are for a reason because they are more effective in real world infection scenario's detecting and dealing with live malware.

So what you are saying, is that the results are false and that MBAM should have, I dont know, lets say 95%, right?

What about this test:

http://www.emsisoft.com/en/software/scanner/

Is this not trustworthy? Are you saying that emsisoft lies too?

Just curious.

[Retadpuss]

Originally Posted by sded

MBAM was vilified on the SSUpdater site when MBAM complained to the SSUpdater ISP about the MBAM keygens and got the site taken down, so SSUpdater had to go find another ISP. Not surprising they would still attack MBAM every chance.

In actual fact, SSUpdater did not have to find another ISP.

Marcin did contact their ISP and made a claim that the site was hosting cracks etc. Whilst the claim was investigated, the site was suspended. After investigation, it was discovered that Marcins claim was false and there were no cracks, serials or keygens hosted anywhere on the site and the site was up again within two hours.

The fact of the matter is the test they have conducted shows which are the best AMs and which are the worst. The test has much the same results as the EMSI test (which Marcin complained about as well!!!!)

I can tell you now, there are going to be many more AM tests, from several well respected testing sites that are going to include MBAM - because Marcin has stated MBAM is a full AM and refuses to make it clear on the website that it should be used with a full AM.

If he wants to pretend MBAM is a full AM, its going to get tested as one.