Antivirus product self-protection test #2 from Anti-Malware Test Lab

Discussion in 'other anti-virus software' started by MrBrian, Oct 18, 2010.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. MrBrian

    MrBrian Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2008
    Posts:
    6,032
    Location:
    USA
  2. Rilla927

    Rilla927 Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2005
    Posts:
    1,710
    I get a 403 Access Forbidden.
     
  3. CloneRanger

    CloneRanger Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2006
    Posts:
    4,833
  4. brainrb1

    brainrb1 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2010
    Posts:
    474
    Microsoft Security Essentials 'Failed' :rolleyes: wow that's a shock ..Failed o_O :doubt:
     
  5. Sherlock_Holmes

    Sherlock_Holmes Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2010
    Posts:
    1,448
    Location:
    Mumbai
    Ya Shocking !!
     
  6. lordraiden

    lordraiden Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2006
    Posts:
    3,075
    Last edited: Oct 19, 2010
  7. RejZoR

    RejZoR Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2004
    Posts:
    6,426
    The results of MSE just confirm why i don't like using it...
     
  8. Rampastein

    Rampastein Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2009
    Posts:
    290
    I think the reason why they tested Comodo 4.1 and NIS 2010 is that their newest versions weren't released at the time of testing. Although some products don't have their newest versions tested, I think this test still gives some insight about their current self-protection capabilities.

    The results are quite expected IMO. Nice job KL :thumb:
     
  9. trjam

    trjam Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2006
    Posts:
    9,057
    Location:
    North Carolina
    Avast did well.
     
  10. Nevis

    Nevis Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2010
    Posts:
    786
    Location:
    255.255.255.255
    norton did fine
    as expected kas is good in self defense
     
  11. firzen771

    firzen771 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2007
    Posts:
    4,815
    Location:
    Canada
    looks like the Russian AV's are the kings of self protection according to this test :D
     
  12. PJC

    PJC Very Frequent Poster

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Posts:
    2,959
    Location:
    Internet
    1. Top Performers

    -Kaspersky,
    -Dr.Web,
    -Online Solutions Security Suite,
    -Outpost Security Suite Pro
    (All Made in Russia)

    2. Anti-Malware Test Lab (Made in Russia).

    Hmmm...Strange Coincidence...

    I went through the past Tests: Kaspersky and Dr.Web come on Top Quite Often.

    Am I missing something, here o_O
     
  13. risl

    risl Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2006
    Posts:
    581
    You are probably not missing anything, unless you think about them faking results, which I doubt. Geographic location doesn't affect the ways these programs were attacked. The same test could probably be repeated with same results by European or US testers.

    Geographics could affect traditional testing, for example if they would only choose Russian samples. This test was not about selecting malware samples, but to see if av-programs could be disabled or their operation interfered by using some specific methods.
     
  14. risl

    risl Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2006
    Posts:
    581
  15. MrGSM

    MrGSM Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2008
    Posts:
    142
    Location:
    Morocco
    It's a strange result, i think they want to give awards to russian products, it's normal to give it to products of your country...:)
     
  16. Rampastein

    Rampastein Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2009
    Posts:
    290
    I don't know about Dr. Web, but the rest of the Russian products here (Kaspersky, Online Solutions, Outpost) have always had good self-defence (or at least as long as I've known them). I don't find anything wrong or surprising in the results.

    Also I've seen some tests by Anti-Malware test lab in which the Russian products have got average or bad results (look at their performance test for example).
     
  17. Victek

    Victek Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2007
    Posts:
    5,123
    Location:
    USA
    I'm glad to see attention being paid to the self-protection capability of anti-malware products - I don't think this is focused on enough in many reviews. I wasn't surprised to see AVG near the bottom. Too often I've found the free version disabled and sometimes almost completely deleted on infected machines.
     
  18. xxJackxx

    xxJackxx Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2008
    Posts:
    4,049
    Location:
    USA
    Though it does seem to be a strange coincidence I don't feel there is anything biased going on here. As a license holder of both Kaspersky and Outpost Security Suite I can say the self defense is very good on both of them. :thumb:
     
  19. funkydude

    funkydude Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2004
    Posts:
    6,853
    Something tells me this is only an excuse for something else... ;)

    Excluding the fact that the Russian AV's nearly always win on tests made by this "so called group", if you want to learn something today: This isn't a detection test (unless you believe DrWeb could realistically score anywhere near 99% and that GDATA is as terrible as 70%...) This is a self-protection test for which MSE have NONE. If however they had tested the 64bit version of MSE it would pass with flying colours, since 32bit malware cannot kill 64bit processes.

    This test is meaningless as is "self-protection", just another marketing thing people buy into. If malware could kill your AV in the first place it means it wasn't detected. a.k.a. the AV failed.
     
  20. Victek

    Victek Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2007
    Posts:
    5,123
    Location:
    USA
    An AV may initially miss a malware and allow it into the system, but still be able to detect and remove it during an active scan. Certainly it's better if an AV can resist being disabled by malware, don't you think?
     
  21. firzen771

    firzen771 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2007
    Posts:
    4,815
    Location:
    Canada
    of course, i think almost anyone would agree having an AV thats able to at least keep itself from being disabled by any little virus out there is a good thing

    but as we see many times here, wenever someones personal favourite AV does badly, the test gets thrown out the windows as being pointless

    now i havent looked at the details of this test to judge for myself if i think its a worthwhile test, but we cant just throw out the results of every test our favourite product does bad on simply for that reason (and everyone knows this is the primary reason people say the test is worthless)
     
  22. fax

    fax Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2005
    Posts:
    3,729
    Location:
    localhost
    The methodology of scoring is (IMO) over biased towards GUI (i.e the graphical user interface) termination. The GUI killing (at user level) is counted as security weakness (0.5 points), however, for some of the product tested this is by design and does not entail a security risk. In fact, the main driver (at system level) will still protect the system from unknown or new suspicious actions. I.e. no breach of security.


    But anyway..... nice test :D
     
    Last edited: Oct 19, 2010
  23. Rampastein

    Rampastein Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2009
    Posts:
    290
    Yeah, and the test is useless since every user in the world is running a 64-bit system? :rolleyes: And what about 64-bit malware (although currently very rare, the amount is increasing)?
    Many of these AVs/Suites still contain modules like HIPS, BB, etc. which in most cases will restrict the infection from damaging the system as much as it could without the security software installed. Also in many cases, when an user gets infected by a trojan-downloader, the AV will still detect and block any additional files which the trojan tries to download. Many AVs also contain additional tools to clean infections with (AVZ and Application Control in case of Kaspersky).
     
    Last edited: Oct 19, 2010
  24. ALookingInView

    ALookingInView Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2009
    Posts:
    365
    MSE has never had a self-protection module.
    I wouldn't have thought Avira would place that high though. Or ESET that low.
     
  25. xxJackxx

    xxJackxx Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2008
    Posts:
    4,049
    Location:
    USA
    I've noticed a lot of AV on 64 bit machines is 32 bit software with 64 bit drivers. They claim it is just a effective and there is no reason to go full 64 bit. Maybe when Windows 8 comes out and there is no more 32 bit they won't have any more excuses.
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.