Roboscan ESTsoft ALYac Antivirus Basic: Uses BitDefender and ESTsoft’s Tera Engine

[Cloud]

Originally Posted by quanzi_1507

AFAIK they are the same, the name change is there so that it will be more appealing to global markets.

Yep, that is about right. Here in Korea it is still known as Alyac.

[sg09]

@STV0726:
Right, we shouldn't post links to YT video and no of detected, no of missed ratio. But I think is it not wrong to say that " I my tests it didn't perform well".

[narenbisht]

Originally Posted by sg09

@STV0726:
Right, we shouldn't post links to YT video and no of detected, no of missed ratio. But I think is it not wrong to say that " In my tests it didn't perform well".

or it prompted for 13 & it didn't prompted for 25

[sg09]

Originally Posted by narenbisht

or it prompted for 13 & it didn't prompted for 25

Lol

[STV0726]

Originally Posted by sg09

@STV0726:
Right, we shouldn't post links to YT video and no of detected, no of missed ratio. But I think is it not wrong to say that " I my tests it didn't perform well".

No, that's exactly what LowWaterMark and the administration team here is against. Your tests don't mean anything. Nor do mine. Nor do this thread's author. We are not professional malware testers following any set of standards. Our "tests" are completely unregulated and without restating all that Low has said (because he said it very well), user tests really mean next to nothing.

Anyway, do what you want, I was just trying to offer friendly advice so this thread doesn't get put at jeopardy. Threads have been closed for this reason.

[sg09]

@STV0726: I understand your concern !!

[STV0726]

I should add that while I definitely feel user TESTS are next to meaningless, the same cannot be said about users reporting their EXPERIENCE. That is a totally different ball game and can be just as important as product efficacy.

[Cloud]

Anybody using this currently?

[Boost]

Originally Posted by Cloud

Anybody using this currently?

I know someone who is running Roboscan Internet security free with no issues.

[sg09]

I am running this in VM.

[narenbisht]

I had sent them an email & requested about Bitdefender Engine.

Here the reply I recieved

"We are using the same latest Bitdefender Engine.

Just some times, the engine updates requires time to complete update."

[nord1]

Originally Posted by narenbisht

I had sent them an email & requested about Bitdefender Engine.

Here the reply I recieved

"We are using the same latest Bitdefender Engine.

Just some times, the engine updates requires time to complete update."

narenbisht,

This program looks interesting, but there does not seem to be a lot of different reviews about it nor a lot of talk about it in forums. Would really like to hear more, as I do know bitdefender.

[narenbisht]

Originally Posted by nord1

narenbisht,

This program looks interesting, but there does not seem to be a lot of different reviews about it nor a lot of talk about it in forums. Would really like to hear more, as I do know bitdefender.

I have sent them another email requesting ---

If Roboscan is using the latest Bitdefender engine then why there is difference in detection?

I tested Roboscan & Bitdefender AV with 40 zeroday malware from malware sites like malwaredomainlist, malwareblacklist, malc0de & CleanMX.

Bitdefender detected 28 ( I had disabled the proactive component of Bitdefender & tested only signatures.)
Roboscan detected only 13 (Heuristics & Archive scan enabled too which are disabled by default)

Can you explain if the engines are same then why the huge difference in detection?

Lets wait for the reply.

[nord1]

narenbisht,

Yes, quite the difference. Let us hope that we can get better info and perhaps some links to sites where Roboscan is talked about more.

Thanks!

[sg09]

@Naren: As I am lacking time. May I ask you for something..?
Could you please check if detection of Roboscan and ZenOK are similar. Last time I tested ZenOK it used to have similar lack in detection. Actually I am having a feeling if Bitdefnder have provided an incomplete version of their engine to license in free software.

[narenbisht]

Originally Posted by sg09

@Naren: As I am lacking time. May I ask you for something..?
Could you please check if detection of Roboscan and ZenOK are similar. Last time I tested ZenOK it used to have similar lack in detection. Actually I am having a feeling if Bitdefnder have provided an incomplete version of their engine to license in free software.

For me ZenOK is trash so I am not going to waste my time on it.

About Bitdefender licencing

http://www.bitdefender.com/oem/

[Cloud]

Originally Posted by narenbisht

For me ZenOK is trash so I am not going to waste my time on it.

ZenOK is simply buggy. That is all.

Hopefully their new upcoming release changes this.

[Divenow]

I'm using this as my only antivirus, seems good so far.

[narenbisht]

Originally Posted by narenbisht

I have sent them another email requesting ---

If Roboscan is using the latest Bitdefender engine then why there is difference in detection?

I tested Roboscan & Bitdefender AV with 40 zeroday malware from malware sites like malwaredomainlist, malwareblacklist, malc0de & CleanMX.

Bitdefender detected 28 ( I had disabled the proactive component of Bitdefender & tested only signatures.)
Roboscan detected only 13 (Heuristics & Archive scan enabled too which are disabled by default)

Can you explain if the engines are same then why the huge difference in detection?

Lets wait for the reply.

Hers's the reply ---

Some reasons for the difference of number of detected malware between BitDefender and Roboscan is because we purposely excluded some files.

There are some files from other company's program, which are not malware actually, but seem to be suspicious files because those are not well-known or commonly used.

In this case, we have a list and make a exclusion so that we could avoid false positive issues.

Other reason would be update problem. Please make sure that you made a latest update for Robsocan.

[narenbisht]

Sent another email ---


At the time of test I had updated both at the same time to the latest definitions available.

I am not satisfied with your reason in your previous email about huge difference in detection of Roboscan & Bitdefender i.e you exclude some files. Offcoz you may be excluding FP's files & not malware files. Anyway still the difference in detection is huge.

Currently we are discussing Roboscan on wilders forum, you may check it, reply & give info.

In few of the forums the same topic is being discussed, why the huge difference in detection between Roboscan & Bitdefender when Roboscan is using the same latest engine of Bitdefender?

[sg09]

Originally Posted by narenbisht

There are some files from other company's program, which are not malware actually, but seem to be suspicious files because those are not well-known or commonly used.

In this case, we have a list and make a exclusion so that we could avoid false positive issues.

Considering their performance in Virus Bulletin, it seems really astonishing if it really lacks detection compared to Bitdefender.
http://www.virusbtn.com/vb100/archive/vendor?id=548
http://www.virusbtn.com/vb100/RAP/RA...-Feb12-850.jpg

Actually Naren, not all the files you download from those malware hosting sites are malwares and the fact that many AVs detect those as malwares in Virus Total doesn't make them malware. We need to seriously analyze files for malware activity before blaming them for missing malware.

[Cloud]

Originally Posted by sg09

We need to seriously analyze files for malware activity before blaming them for missing malware.

[narenbisht]

Originally Posted by sg09

Considering their performance in Virus Bulletin, it seems really astonishing if it really lacks detection compared to Bitdefender.
http://www.virusbtn.com/vb100/archive/vendor?id=548
http://www.virusbtn.com/vb100/RAP/RA...-Feb12-850.jpg

Actually Naren, not all the files you download from those malware hosting sites are malwares and the fact that many AVs detect those as malwares in Virus Total doesn't make them malware. We need to seriously analyze files for malware activity before blaming them for missing malware.

Yes you are totally right there.

I compared it with BD in the following way ---

I downloaded malware & tested with both & selected malware which were detected by BD but not by RS. There were no malware which were detected by RS & not detected by BD.

The malware only detected by BD, I executed & tested against RS.

After system restart I checked with Comodo Cleaning Essentials.

KillSwitch showed malware processes.
Autorun showed malware entries.

Quick Repair showed Hosts changed, TaskManager disabled, Proxy changed, Internet explorer was not working & always showing tab recovered whenever I tried to open any sites & a rogue software which was opening everytime whenever I clicked anything, etc.

So may be we are not totally right but there seems to be something amiss in RS signature detection compared to BD.

And that something may be the BD licence obtained by RS.

If I understood correctly BD licence providing page BD provides the licence for their products in different way like full product licence, semi product licence, some parts of the product licence, etc.

So may be RS obtained something semi or parts like limited signatures or any other things, etc.

[sg09]

Fair enough Naren..

[Atul88]

Originally Posted by Cloud

+1...I feel the same!!!
I am going to try few which i have downloaded!!!