Prevx scores high numbers in Malware Research Group's latest test

http://malwareresearchgroup.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=47&start=30

Congrats Prevx!

 

was this tested with default settings or on high heuristics?

 

Not sure, you can ask the moderator on the forum, they are pretty open in disclosing their test rigs.

 

i know prevx is good at default,imagine set at high

 

In the thread the Mods say in future all apps will be tested at default. In the recent test they said they changed some app settings (eg Comodo).

 

thanks for the information

 

Malware Research Group's "Rogue Software test" result's are due out tomorrow. (Thursday the 13th)
Should be interesting.
http://malwareresearchgroup.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=19&t=60&start=10

 

Hopefully they will test the latest Rogues otherwise it's gonna be quite easy

 

Yes, hopefully.
Slight delay in results though.
Should be posted Sunday August 16th.
http://malwareresearchgroup.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=19&t=60&start=10

 

they should score high, they detected my mother-in-law as malware.

The true test for Prevx, as Joe knows, will be when someone tests the detection rate in conjunction with the FP rate. That is when, and only then, when you will know just how good it is. And I know they are working to resolve the FP issue.

 

You always say this but I always end up saying there is no FP issue... we've gone back and forth probably a dozen times so far and today is one of the many days that myself and all of the researchers in Prevx have had to fix absolutely 0 FPs because we don't have an FP problem

 

i set prevx heuristic on high without any fp

 

As with any other security product, the prevalence of FPs depends on what applications are installed. Those users who say they have no FPs with whatever AV/AM they're using aren't downloading all and sundry. It's usually the obscure and lesser well known products that tend to possibly flag up a FP alert. The more well known programs that may flag a FP alert should be corrected, but these should appear less and less to the point they don't generate such alerts.

I've said this before, but when I look at the lists of FPs reported in tests on various AVs/AMs, I often haven't a clue what the applications are, let alone have them installed on my system. That's not to say they wouldn't trigger an alert had I had it installed at same time as they did the test, but the point is most users outside of forums like this won't have nearly half of the stuff that's mentioned. This is why, quite rightly, Joe and others say they don't have many FP submissions. They come from users from discussion groups such as this.

That's my tuppence on the subject.

 

zero, 0, nada false positives here...

Fax

 

Since I am using PrevX3.0 (real-time) for last 2 weeks and don't have ANY (read ZERO) FP "issues" all I can say this is great software! Even if "they" had "issue" with FP, "they" don't have it anymore!!!