Prevx scored no.1 in test

I believe they have:

 

The way they tested is really childish.

- DW tested in total wrong way.
- Funny to test zemana against its own tests, only a stupid company will create tests that wil fail its own software.
- KS tested against screen capture, clip board loggers etc while it is not even supposed to do this.

 

Ahhh I missed that part. Thanks PH!

 

you have made your thoughts or disgust known aigle, several times in this thread. Give it a rest.

 

Ok dear!

 

I agree and if you re-read my post I said that: "the methodology used for the test correctly ignored the capability of the products to detect, prevent, and clean" (my emphasis). I consider the test to have been flawed only in the choice of products to include, not the methodology used to conduct the test.

I agree that this is the only valid way to test online banking browser security programs such as SafeOnline and Rapport. For the same reason, it's invalid to include a program such as DefenseWall in a test of this nature, where it is a stated requirement that DW be installed on a clean system. It would be like including Prevx in a firewall challenge then concluding that Prevx is useless at outbound application control when Prevx has never claimed to be a firewall.

IMHO when deciding which programs to include in a test where the purpose of the test and an appropriate test methodology have been defined, care should be taken to ensure that the programs chosen for inclusion are sufficiently functionally similar to enable valid comparisons to be made between them.

 

Lol, Malware Research Group. People still take their tests seriously?

 

How would you have had them test it? In a method whereby it passed? If the MRG bypass of DW is valid, then even a real world test approach could have bypassed DW. Sure DW is only meant to be installed on a clean PC and it states that in the user guide, but where does it clearly say on DW's website "This product provides no protection against malware already resident on your system". It doesn't, so in that respect DW is fair game.

So what were they meant to do? State "We're not going to test Zemana against these tests, because there's no way they'd fail". What a stupid thing that would have been.

Where does it clearly state that on KS' website? KS positions itself quite clearly as a product to protect your critical data, and specifically references protection of financial website usernames and passwords. Just look at KS' homepage. Is the average user meant to infer from the homepage that KS doesn't protect from clipboard logging or screencapture. Of course not. KS is fair game in this test.

 

I almost ended my posts this thread.`We can,t agree BTW.

 

Well, since you put it that way. Please continue.

 

PrevX is awesome coz it is small... when on the go and I need to use some unknown PC... I just plug in my thumbdrive and install SafeOnline.

Now I feel secured to log in my credentials.. even on an infected PC


no software is that easy!! for me

 

We tried with good intent to do something which had real value in a space that was not covered. We had no agenda other than to seize the moment on a topical area of security and test some products. Could we do it better - sure. But did we do it fairly - yes. Do the results have value - yes.

We have been open to and have responded to criticisms in a logical and fair minded manner. We hope the tests stand scrutiny on their own merits.

Please treat our work with the respect we think it deserves.

 

To me the test was valid. It was something that you don't usually see.

 

I agree that this test was carried out in good faith by MRG using a sound methodology for this class of product. This is an area that I've never seen covered before and the test results are most definitely of value.

Kudos to MRG for openly engaging in discussion about their work in this thread and responding to criticisms. I for one appreciate and respect the work MRG have put into this test.

 

Hi,

Great to see that SafeOnline passes all the tests , also shocking to see that Trusteer Rapport performs so badly, after all it´s a much hyped product.

About the chosen tools, instead of Mamutu and DefenseWall, which are not dedicated antiloggers, you could have rather tested tools like ZA ForceField and Authentium’s Safe Central. Also, on a side note, some tools like for example Keyscrambler, only protects against keylogging, so no suprise it is failing some tests.

 

Prevx and others will be tested again.

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

Be interesting to see how prevx handles the new batch.

 

Yes - I'm looking forwards to seeing the test results.