MRG Tests

Well I know hundreds of sites that use that service, you can contact them and they will remove your IP asap.

Regards,
Sveta

 

I did hit stop attack after installing. The ran MBAM with 15 active detections. I know what you are saying I think, but from a consumer view how does this work.

 

I just tried the link in Prevx thread and i got in.. i think that thing - not the Honey project thing, but your script or something - is broken somehow.

 

Wish I could remember what test it was, but about 1-2 years ago there was a test of various anti-malware applications including Prevx.
As it turned out Prevx had one of the poorer showings, and AV suites like KIS did much better.

There has been a lot of hype from time to tiime re Prevx, but the few tests I have seen do not bear out that it is an effective application compared to others.

Regards,
Jerry

 

The point was not that ssupdater had subdomains using other website names like this microsoft example. The point was that your website, malwareresearchgroup.com, had links to "mrg.ssupdater.com" coded in your contact pages.

You have cleaned up those pages since it was last discussed, but, the google cache still has a copy of some of your pages containing the "mrg.ssupdater.com" links:

http://74.125.93.132/search?q=cache...com&cd=7&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a

If you mouse-over the [noparse]Info@MalwareResearchGroup.com[/noparse] link, you see the link underneath points to "[noparse]http://mrg.ssupdater.com/info@malwareresearchgroup.com[/noparse]"

That's what the discussion was about before, the content of your own contact page, not whether ssupdater had a subdomain called mrg.ssupdater.com. No matter what subdomain a website like ssupdater might make, that doesn't cause other websites like yours to have code imbedded in them pointing to that other website. You did have mrg.ssupdater.com code in your webpages. That's why people said there was a relationship between you and them, why else would you have coded their website links into your contact page?

 

That was disclosed in full on our website, you can see that one name missing from that list, you can figure out on your own what happened

And let me assure you for the last time, we are not associated with them or any other website.

 

You mention a test from "1-2 years ago" where "Prevx had one of the poorer showings". Then you mention a "few tests" that you have seen that say it is not effective. I'd love for you to be more specific.

Here is a test from 6 months ago where Prevx "does a great job".

I have yet to see a valid test where Prevx performs poorly, so please try to present the links to substantiate what you are claiming.

 

If you right click on the files and select DW then properties, it will show the file as untrusted meaning it can do no harm. To get rid of them you can use DW's file and registry tracks rollback or an on demand scanner to clean them up.

 

with all due respect Page, he is likely comparing it to the orginal Prevx. Having said that, I do know its detection ability are very good but honestly feel that SafeOnline is a total waste of resources that Prevx may regret in time. A sandbox was orginally planned and their reason stated, even though it did not say it, came down to money and investment, bottom line.

 

thank you, how do I know which file that is?

 

trjam, I'm not overly enthused about SafeOnline myself. I tend to agree with your statement about it being a waste of resources... but we stray from the topic, don't we.

 

What a classic reply!

 

Hi Page42

I wish I had the link, but I have never had an interest in Prevx. It was just a matter of interest at the time since there had been a lot of folks praising it. It missed, if my memory serves, 5 samples and was one of the worse of the applications tested. It did convince me that I did not need it, and I have never had a reason to change. Since I had no interest I did not bookmark the link.

I have no dog in this fight, but commented because it is always the case that when a test is conducted, and someone’s favorite rates low, then the claims are that the test is not valid. I am sure I have ever seen an exception to that. I don’t know how valid anyone’s test is from a technical standpoint as I have no expertise in these areas. However, I place more trust in IBK than anyone. I just wish he would test applications such as Prevx.

Although many always disparage tests by PC Mag, I see no reason why their tests are seriously flawed, as some claim, and generally accept their ratings. However, I prefer to use a minimum of applications, and have stayed clean for the 10 years I have owned computers primarily counting on good AVs and firewalls.

“I have yet to see a valid test where Prevx performs poorly, so please try to present the links to substantiate what you are claiming. ”

Maybe the test I saw was not valid, and I am sure some claimed it was not.

Regards,
Jerry

 

Look at the DW file and registry tracks screen and you will see all the files and registry keys for the infections that MBAM found. There you can rollback or delete as desired. Below is the definition of delete and rollback from the DW help docs:

Delete: Will remove an item or set of items from the list and delete all files and registry keys from your hard drive. Use with caution!


Rollback to: Will remove an item or set of items that were created after the item selected and erase files and registry entries from your hard drive. Use with caution!

Hope that helps.

 

I think that there are more objective souls out there than you give credit for. Count me as someone who wants to see a test where a program I am using performs poorly... if such a test exists. And I doubt that I am alone in that sentiment. Show me evidence that I am using something that is failing tests, and I will reconsider my security setup. That only makes sense to me. And it is the only reason I asked you to provide links.

 

Does anyone know anything about MRG? They have always seemed to me like a bunch of wankers with little/no academic or professional credentials playing with some malware they have found. No design of experiments or sample selection, too small a sample to hope to wash those types of problems out, little real information on the experiment setup. At least they don't seem as hostile toward the community as SSUpdater (I was around for their Comodo fiasco as a moderator) although some of the same players seem to pop up. Hard to argue with "we collected a bunch of uncharacterized data, ran it against some programs, here are the results, YMMV". But is this science/engineering or another high school science project? And does arguing about the results make any sense?