MRG Tests 2013

No webroot?

 

Yes, Webroot is here - how could you not see it?
DefenceWall is here
No AppGuard
No Comodo
They might consider including NVT ExeRadar as well.

 

Where? Can't see it in report.

Mhm. Default settings, PUA in the testset and f.e. Kaspersky detects it all? Seems strange

 

MRG Effitas Project 33
Project Details: MRG Effitas Real Time Protection Test Project, First Quarter – Q2 2013
-------------------------------
MRG Effitas Project 32
Project Details: Comparative Efficacy Assessment of Wontok SafeCentral
February 2013
http://www.mrg-effitas.com/wp-conte...Efficacy-Assessment-of-Wontok-SafeCentral.pdf

 

I meant the OP, obviously you meant the report. Webroot isn't there, sorry I didn't understand what you meant.

 

I like their revised Methodology Used in the Tests & Samples criteria

I "think" the reason why SAS always does so poorly, taken from what i've noted in their updates www over the years, it's "possibly" not because the're not capable of doing better, but they don't have nearly as many DEFS as other vendors !

Having said that, other tech built into SAS should prevent more fails, why it doesn't ?

 

I'm pretty sure he meant that Quarri needs the runtime library of Java, and Java is a very targeted runtime library hence posing a risk for any PC running it.

 

Interesting that Avast got 100%, with user input, even though the samples included potentially unwanted applications and Avast was set to default (where it does not detect potentially unwanted programs.)

 

Personally, I am very disappointed with this latest MRG test.

It is applicable to WIN 7 x86 only. Many of the AVs tested do not have equal protective features under x64. NIS 2013 for example does not protect against global hooking, keyloggers, and the like under x64.

Then there is the testing methodolgy. All that was tested was user initiated downloads via IE. Next, equal weight was given to context and full system scan detection. How many non-technical users do context scans after a download? The PUA sample size was very small and I didn't see adware mentioned so I assume no samples existed in this category.

 

One might reason the PUA (or PUP as avast! calls it), carrying additional payload, was most likely snagged by another Shield as its malicious activities progressed.

Perhaps the auto sandbox thing and where the Cloud is queried and returns that "as yet unrecognized" dialogue prompting a user decision? Sorry, I forget the exact wording and process events for this example.

Yet, 100% is 100% even tho not for The Masses.

 

Probably not many But they also tested whether the sample is detected, or not, when it's executed.

 

http://www.mrg-effitas.com/wp-conte...ffitas-Real-Time-Protection-Test-Q1-20131.pdf

 

Then it should be zero. But it's complete nonsense to shows figures or diagrams without numbers...

 

This is like going back 10+ years ago and applying test methodlogies that were applicable at that time.

No wonder so many participants did so well. Again one of the lamest tests I have seen in some time.