MRG - new test results

MRG have published their new Browser Security - Financial Malware tests results this morning.

http://malwareresearchgroup.com/?page_id=2

 

Prevx,SpyShelter,Zemana,Defensewall.........great apps

 

Would be nice if they tested with products' advanced settings as well (via simple checkbox or slider leveraging, where available) and added screenshots of the warnings (if any) of the products that passed the test.
And any reason why the results of one of the tested products (Comodo presumably) is censored/darkened out?

 

Kudos to Prevx, very good work.

 

Will be interesting to see this series of tests unfold over the next few weeks.
I was surprised to see that OA++ failed, and it seems that just about all of the actual security suite's failed except for Norton. Nice to see that DW passed this one after the confusion in the last set of tests.
The different tests to follow may throw up wildly different results.
One things for sure, some people will be getting hot under the collar

 

The report indicates that there were 28 applications tested and one of the lines is blacked out. I expect that one vendor didn't like the results.

Anyone have any idea which one this would be?

 

Comodo

 

Here is the original list and info on the testing procedure:

http://malwareresearchgroup.com/?p=1517#more-1517

 

Congrats to those that passed

Interesting to note that all these products - Prevx, SafeCentral, Spyshelter, TrustDefender, Zemana - that are specifically designed to securely browser protect, did so.

It would be nice to know the attempted attack details, but they are arn't saying, for now anyway.

 

To me the surprise winner is NIS 2010 and congratulation to all those who won.

Thanks

 

To confirm, Comodo was excluded from this test, we will give out details on our site later on.


The testing continues and when this round finishes we will release all the materials that we have, images, videos....

Just to give you a little heads up for DefenseWall HIPS, we tested version 3.00 not 2.56, it will be changed in the report in few minutes.

Regards,
Sveta

 

Wow, this time this was FAST

 

Was Sandboxie setup where only your browser has start/run access and able to use internet resources?

 

Norton just keeps plugging along and pretty well near the top in all the test I have seen latel.
Congratulations to Norton for a great AV.

Regards,
Jerry

 

Jerry, you should try Prevx, very light and et and forget. Plus it works.

 

Thanks, Jeff. Not sure why I have never done so. I guess I have always thought I had such good security I did not need it.

Do I detect a new Avatar? Surely not.

Regards,
Jerry

 

Only this one. Personally, I am using it by itself.

 

Franklin.

I would not think so. To me independant tests should be primarely intended for people orientating on a product to buy. Since you new to a product, it is 99% likely such a new user start at the bottem of the leaning curve, most likely with a default config. This is the reason most tests are performed with all default settings.

For testing software launched by a competitor or simular products, it may be a nice suggestion to open up a sticky where experienced users like yourself post additional settings to protect against these Proof of Concepts/Malware. In this way the knowledge of highly configurable software will be shared (from power users to medium expereinced and new users).

Regards Kees

 

Hmmm...I don't see Avast in the test...

 

I was wondering the same thing. Sandboxie isnt meant to detect keyloggers or anything for that matter and seems out of place in that test.

 

Snipped from your site

Maybe you are too kind if they have become absusive.

A fail is a fail except when you remove them from the test group results.

This is not very professional Sveta if you are trying to establash yourself as a professional testing service

 

I guess its accept...

Anyways it seems that Comodo is going way to un-professional..This is not good for them..

 

Nothing new about MRG comparing apples and oranges in truly unrepresentative tests.

 

We included SandboxIE in the test for two main reasons:
1)We received a number of requests to include it.
2)Because we have seen posts made in several security forums where individuals have stated that SandboxIE is all they use for online security – and some have specifically suggested that this will protect you from financial malware.

It is clear from this that many people do not understand SandboxIE and may use it thinking it will protect them from FM downloaded during a browsing session – when it will not.

We contacted Ronen before we published and discussed our reasons for including SandboxIE and we also agreed with Ronen that after giving the overview of SandboxIE, it would not be included in further testing in this project.

Regards,
Sveta

 

My issue with the testing of Sandboxie is that average users that leave it set as default would not use it as a standalone product but as a supplement to an AV.Those power users that would just use SBIE would have configured it as per Franklin's post and set tight restrictions on what exactly can run and which resources it can access.