prevx home page claims other AV's missed malware

Yes If I wanted a program that told me my legit software was a virus I would use it. But sense I really want virus caught instead Ill use a something else.


Placabo AV anyone

 

Let's see an example: PREVX and AVIRA home pages. 90% of what is written is about how others fail, they don't even bother to explain what or how PREVX works. As I have already mentioned if it works for them commercially, good luck to PREVX, I personally think it is unethical.

 

"More than security. For more than 20 years."
More than security? What's that mean? It's a toaster oven too?

"The new Avira Premium Security Suite
Cause viruses sleepless nights!"

Now there's a bit of nonsensical imagery... viruses tossing and turning.

So what's your point? Avira makes claims that are impossible to understand?

 

Come on man! You are changing the context of the thread. We are talking about naming competitors as failures. We are not talking about semantics of home pages and what AVs companies claim in terms of percentages. It was a big mistake for me to get involved in this thread which after all will benefit PREVX.

 

Okay, I accept that. But it wasn't until you put Avira's home page up that I saw how ridiculous some of their claims are. Maybe Avira and Prevx should not be judged too critically for what their home pages say. I mean, viruses having sleepless nights and a program that is more than security? Maybe some of the participants on this thread should focus on the job Prevx does with malware and less on how it represents itself. For those of us who have no problem with the statistics that Prevx displays, and no problem with their method of calling other vendors on the carpet, it sure gets old listening to the whining.

 

IMHO there's a difference between marketing claims (which are practically unavoidable) and directly attacking competitors, especially using internal statistics (ie Prevx and Emsisoft).

 

You look like you have a pretty good security set up. And you obviously put a lot of thought into what goes onto your machine and what comes off. I agree with you 100% about personal experience being most important.

One difference between you and me is that when you installed Prevx and it found nothing, you sounded disappointed. I was glad. And where you said, "I am glad I have never paid for Prevx...paying for it would mean I would have lost valuable money", I decided to pay for it and look to the future and what Prevx would do to keep crap off of my system for years to come, as part of my overall security.

I wish you well with your security programs.

 

Hi Someone, see this post, and kindly give us your thoughts on that. I'd like to hear your response.

 

It is amazing how people will circumvent the issues at hand, with off topic issues in order to have the upper hand in a discussion. The point, Page42, is that Avira doesn't mention anywhere a single competitor whereas PREVX's homepage is a mantra of repetitions of how bad the others are:

Seven times the words security, failing, popular,others,missed,vendors, bypassing have been used in different combinations. This is outright brainwashing which isn't just unethical but dishonest.

 

Hi Osaban, see this post, and kindly give us your thoughts on that. I'd like to hear your response.

And btw, I'm not circumventing the issues at hand. I said quite clearly to you, "For those of us who have no problem with the statistics that Prevx displays, and no problem with their method of calling other vendors on the carpet, it sure gets old listening to the whining."

 

We would have immediately given you a refund if this were the case

I suspect that, like many of the users here with other FP issues, you tend to be a more techie user which is why Comodo and Prevx both have caused you FP issues. Users 4-5 standard deviations above the mean population tend to run into far more problems than the average user - the other 99+% are sitting happily with either no detections or with detections of real malware.

As I've said many times before, we find/fix 5-10 FPs per day in the customer support inbox and the handful which come here. We don't need someone managing these statistics on a daily basis because the volume is very low

One thing I don't understand with the complaints in the last few posts is that people are saying that it is OK for a vendor to make claims and then not back them up with hard fact but it isn't OK to support our claims?

In that case, I am the sexiest man alive.

 

First, I think that PREVX is taking advantage of the fact that being constantly connected to the host computer they can analyse data that can be used against their competitors (here at Wilders there are members screaming only at the thought of their application phoning home once). Which means nobody can check at PREVX's own performance.

Secondly, we all know that no matter what application we use there can be hundreds of variables that can make such an application useless most of the time a distracted (see obtuse) user, installing an AV in an already infected computer, failing to update or configure properly etc.

Thirdly, how can you possibly start legal action with arbitrary data? Data taken from computers that cannot be identified for privacy reasons. I also think that from the big players point of view, there's no need to worry as home pages making outlandish claims are more than abundant on the internet.

I have followed a lot of posts from the likes of Eraser, PrevxHelp, and I think they are honest and talented people. I don't want to sound disrespectful towards them as I truly believe their application is improving all the time and in the near future their system will probably be adopted by others (McAfee is already using something similar).

 

Of course they are taking advantage of this constant connection to the host computer. And why shouldn't they? Is this not the very advantage that Prevx users benefit from? Would you suggest that Prevx somehow handicap itself because you don't think such an industry advantage is fair?

And what does this have to do with Prevx being willing to supply companies with samples of threats that Prevx says they missed?

What if from the big players point of view, Prevx is right in their claims? What if the big players agree that they are missing threats that others are finding? Almost all security professionals seem to agree that the malware authors are outpacing the security industry.

That's encoraging to hear you say that.

But the essential part of the post that I asked you to respond to has still not been responded to. What I would like to know from you is, if Prevx is so out of line in their figures and their claims, why would they be willing to provide companies with information on the threats that they missed?

 

One thing the statistics have highlighted for me is that if PrevX is catching legitimate malware - leaving FPs out of the equation - on users' systems that some AVs have apparently missed, it says a lot about the internet habits of those users. I know mainstream websites can fall prey to exploits et al., but if you ignore that aspect for a moment, it's quite an eye opener if so many people are getting infected in this manner.

A number of people, myself included, have said they've used PrevX to scan their system to find nothing detected even after running a scan with their AV of choice, which also finds no malware. Of course, it doesn't mean they'll never get an alert in the future, but it clearly shows a difference in computer usage patterns.

The subject of educating users has been brought up before on Wilders, and I think most agree it's no easy task. This is possibly another area PrevX could tackle to inform users how best to try keep malware off their systems as much as possible, and make more of this than the vendor v. vendor approach we're seeing.

 

Advantage to analyse files for malware, or advantage to gather information which can be used against their competitors? I don't know who is really handicapped here.

Do I have to take your word or theirs?

I think you are a bit naive (if, if, if,).

The thread topic is about "prevx home page claims other AV's missed malware"
This isn't a personal attack at PREVX, but whoever from them who had the idea to have this kind of tactic (they really don't need such an aggressive approach). I have scanned my system with PREVX and it found no malware and no FPs. The French would say "Chapeau to PREVX".

Nobody is saying they are out of line in their figures and their claims, I'm saying it's their word against the establishment. Can't you see that there is huge conflict of interest? Willing to provide... The good samaritan... You say it , they say it, therefore I should believe it.

Look, let me reiterate that nobody is questioning PREVX performance, the whole thread was about tactics and strategies, and I think by now we all know what our opinions on the matter are.

 

Both of ours

 

Good point...

 

Marketing PrevX detecting samples that others miss, is a complete non-issue, the others find malware that PrevX misses to. It is true, but NOT an unique quality of PrevX. Here are a few examples of how stupid PrevX's claim is:

Toyota advertising : "Our cars have wheels"

Nike: "With our shoes you can run"

American Airlines: "Our planes fly"

London Symphony Orchestra "We produce a sound"

Kruger Park: "We have animals you can watch"

Australian Open "We have tennis play grounds"

Texaco: "Our Fuel is grade 95"

Nikon "Our cameras make pictures"

LG: "Our TVs display colour"

Etc.

 

no, no, their (prevx) claim is very similar to:
Yugo: our car have better wheels than: Ferrari, Porsche etc. ...

 

I hope this turns into a thread about automobiles. I looove the smell of exhaust fumes in the morning.

 

I wholeheartedly agree. link

 

Of course Prevx will detect some threats which other vendors miss, but other vendors will also detect threats that Prevx miss. But with Prevx's charts it seems to imply that Prevx detects all malware that AV's detect plus more, which isn't true.

 

What's wrong with my car?
(No kidding, I drive one weekly. Superb car )

Your statement is actually not weird at all, they Yugo car has way better wheels for the roads around here then a Ferrari or a Porsche. My guess is that in a Ferrari you can drive 50 meters before you get stuck in a hole and break your carbon under plate... In this perspective, everything is relative.

 

I am using them on a Gateway FX laptop running Vista 64-bit Home Edition. I don't ever notice them on my machine. However, I am not running Webguard on Avira which speeds up web page loading slightly.

The theory is that if one misses something, the other should catch it. I am a high risk surfer and never, ever had malware get by them.

 

You are omniscient?