Matousec Online Payments Threats Comparative Testing

Test 1;
2012/07/06
http://www.matousec.com/info/reports/Online-Payments-Threats.pdf
Test 2;
2012/12/07
http://www.matousec.com/info/reports/Online-Payments-Threats-2.pdf

 

Wow....

 

I am glad to see Norton in the mix, even if they did poorly.
Jerry

 

Interesting tests. Kaspersky and Trusteer Rapport (which I never heard of before) passed all the tests.

 

Those programs with specific Sandboxed browsers would appear to be the best for online banking/shopping.

Nice to see Trusteer tested and compared to AV vendors and Kaspersky continue their good form in recent tests.

 

Kaspersky and Bitdefender: No surprises...

 

Also glad to see that Avast is doing a good job. Its Safemode is easy to use.
Jerry

 

Webroot with PrevX tech should score perfect as well, wonder why no testing done on it? Last I read, WR was the 3rd most popular product worldwide.

 

Agree fully (Safe Mode) and use it often.

 

Webroot safe online didn't score "perfect" at the MRG banking test.

One of the few products that I have never seen fail in this kind of test is Trusteer Rapport and DefenseWall although it wasn't tested here.

 

Even though they are "simulators" that Webroot's Identity Shield supposed of failed it's being looked into: http://community.webroot.com/t5/Web...y-shield-fails-MitB-simulators/m-p/17890#M694

http://community.webroot.com/t5/Web...y-shield-fails-MitB-simulators/m-p/16112#M657

TH

 

I particularly like the way that Matousec has listed exactly what each test does, so there's no mystery about what particular exploit method the software is protecting or failing against.

WSA not being tested is disappointing considering that they were the pioneers in integrating reverse-sandbox/browser protection into an anti-virus/internet security suite. But it also shows that the more commonly known AV vendors are now catching up - specialist online banking protection is now becoming mainstream and I wonder how long it will be before every AV has their own safezone/SafeMoney/SafePay/BankGuard.

 

Yes but is always 1 or 2 steps behind, the last time at the MRG test also failed, then they fix it for that fail, then MRG add new tests/samples and Webroot fails again...

I guess that with the Prevx Safe Online Free, Prevx got more samples and information than now just with paid versions.

I have suggest to Matousec to add more products, but I dont know how it will work now or if they will require money or something like that.

 

I'm glad that I knew Trusteer Rapport months ago through BBC TV's Click

 

Bitdefender just needs to introduce a "Secure/Sandboxed Browser" and they will pass this with flying colors.

 

You just have to keep an eye on that thread at the Webroot Community Forums as there is nothing that I can add personally! And Prevx SafeOnline you would have to ask in the Prevx forum.

TH

 

We didn't even know this test was going on, nor were we asked to be included in it.

 

I'd love to see what their vendor selection criteria was then! How they could miss out WSA in this test is beyond comprehension to me.

 

The first test (don't exactly know about this follow up one) was assigned and paid by KL to test/promote their new online banking features. So they decided what to include.

 

they were both by kaspersky

 

Funded by Kaspersky, it seems...

 

I will stick with Zemana Antikeylogger.

I also take any testing done by Matousec with a grain of salt as far as objectivity goes.

 

The first was, but the second report wasn't. The second report merely says "This comparative testing extends our first Online Payments Threats research assigned by Kaspersky Lab ZAO." i.e. the first was commissioned by Kaspersky.

 

I see no reason to doubt the results regardless of who funded it.
I do not really believe that test agencies lie for the one who funds the test.

Is it really that which is the problem, or because the results do not suit you (not aimed at any individual, but to a lot of folks.)?
Jerry

 

i would be surprised though that they went and did this out of the blue though. ill bet this was part of the first test to continue it or something like that. i could be entirely wrong but unless someone from there responds i guess we will not know. both reports do name kaspersky at the top so im not sure i believe they had nothing to do with the second one at all. and i have no reason to knock them i have many clients that use kaspersky and i always agree it has some of the best detection out there.