F-Secure reviewed at Remove-Malware.com:Bad results

Discussion in 'other anti-virus software' started by emperordarius, Oct 4, 2008.

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

    emperordarius Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2008
    Posts:
    1,218
    Location:
    Who cares
    At Part 5, F-Secure Stopped when dealing with an Adware, Popups weren't stopping, and F-Secure couldn't do a thing.

    From Mrizos:

    "This Thing is bloated, does nothing, doesn't block any process"

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OUTWqHIFzM8

    1.PNG
     
  2. Sjoeii

    Sjoeii Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2006
    Posts:
    1,240
    Location:
    52?18'51.59"N + 4?56'32.13"O
    I read that as well. I really did not expect that
     
  3. emperordarius

    emperordarius Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2008
    Posts:
    1,218
    Location:
    Who cares
    Me neither...acting like that with adware...:doubt:
     
  4. eagle5

    eagle5 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2008
    Posts:
    21
    Was so close to purchasing this software, but had a feeling something just wasn't right now I know.
     
  5. vijayind

    vijayind Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2008
    Posts:
    1,413
    When I said the same earlier on this forum, that "F-Secure can't detect/block Spyware and it allowed my PC to be infected". I got flamed.

    Now its clearly proven, that F-Secure is flawed and its self-protection is easily susceptible. Its scan engine may be good, but its of no use when malware can get past and disable protection.

    Now I will let my EGO, get boosted by 10x. Feel free to flame me again and bring me down.
     
  6. C.S.J

    C.S.J Massive Poster

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2006
    Posts:
    5,029
    Location:
    this forum is biased!
    Really, software like that seems to get nothing but praise on this forum.

    Maybe this will alert people to the fact that all av's miss things, and that it is the correct process to at least work on removal, percentage rates may look good on paper, or be a good argument for the fan boys, but in the real world of surfing the net and downloading, these figures tend to mean sod all.
     
  7. C.S.J

    C.S.J Massive Poster

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2006
    Posts:
    5,029
    Location:
    this forum is biased!
    F-Secure's flaw, like many others .. is its removal.

    but lets not go-over-the-top as people on this forum usually do, this is only one piece of adware. :rolleyes:
     
  8. Bunkhouse Buck

    Bunkhouse Buck Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2007
    Posts:
    1,056
    Location:
    Las Vegas
    I never thought it was good and said that in this forum. It slowed my computers down a lot, and caused several crashes and freezes. Other things are wrong as well as more is revealed.
     
  9. saberfox

    saberfox Former Poster

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2008
    Posts:
    84
    If these figures mean sod, then why do they (by your own admission) make for good arguments?
     
  10. C.S.J

    C.S.J Massive Poster

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2006
    Posts:
    5,029
    Location:
    this forum is biased!
    thats my opinion, but its a good argument to say 'my antivirus detects 99+% of all malware'
     
  11. jrmhng

    jrmhng Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2007
    Posts:
    1,268
    Location:
    Australia
    So he gets a machine infected with 1000s of viruses (he says this in part 1 of the video series) and expects AVs to remove them? This is not a good test at all.
     
  12. risl

    risl Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2006
    Posts:
    581
    It's different(in a positive way)from the traditional tests because now we are able to see how these software act when installed on already infected computers. Errors? Problems installing? Other strange behaviour? Cleaning? .. etc.

    Of course it's better to prevent in the first place but the average user is in most cases, not able to take backups everyday and is prepared to reformat the computer if something happens. These users trust the AV-software and believe it does what is advertised, the ability to detect and disinfect.
     
  13. JasSolo

    JasSolo Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 9, 2007
    Posts:
    414
    Location:
    Denmark
    Hmmm, I guess that you can say that, BUT bear in mind, that he has tested other AV's, who passes the test with bravour....so ;)


    Cheers
     
    Last edited: Oct 4, 2008
  14. Jin K

    Jin K Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2008
    Posts:
    105
    good test for me because it give you a full image about the AV s Ability on blocking and removing malware.

    and most of the AV s that have been tested by him did a good job against these 1000 viruses!!!
     
  15. doktornotor

    doktornotor Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2008
    Posts:
    2,047
    Already posted my rants wrt this methodology in PCMag reviews' related threads. This way, you can't even be sure the AV is properly installed.

    For boxes infected with thousands of malware specimens, I'd say reformat is the only solution and everything else is just a waste of time... However, at minimum you should boot from a rescue CD and try to disinfect from there first before even attempting to install some AV.
     
  16. jrmhng

    jrmhng Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2007
    Posts:
    1,268
    Location:
    Australia
    The problem with cleaning is that once malware is installed, it will have the same privileges as the AV. Theoretically, you can't expect the AV to remove malware at the same privilege level.

    I've cleaned computers where SAS and MBAM had problems removing the malware as well. The PC would just bluescreen when any other AV/AS program ran. It is all really anecdotal evidence though. Again the problem is that they have the same privileges. When a computer is badly infected, you have to scan from outside the infected OS.

    I just don't think these kind of tests are really valid because you just cant clean heavily infected systems like that.
     
  17. vijayind

    vijayind Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2008
    Posts:
    1,413
    Ok, I meant its on-demand scan may be good. But real-time protection has a lot to be desired.

    Don't worry, even with this fatal flaw it got many praises here and my statements were rubbed off. Regardless, now there is some supportive evidence, to my argument. Really hope, F-Secure starts a cleanup like what Symantec did with Norton.
     
  18. vijayind

    vijayind Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2008
    Posts:
    1,413
    Buddy, there are a lot of idiots in this world who enticed by p0rn will allow their system to damaged to much higher levels. And yes, they all have been cleaned. If not by a single scanner, with multiple ones.

    So in part I agree, any solution can't fully clean a heavily infested system. But then it should atleast block/remove/disinfect some files. 0 (or almost zero) is not a very proud figure.

    This test has clearly shown, problems in F-Secure's Real-time protection module. I have witnessed this first hand. It does not block/clean what it attempts and once malware wriggles in. It seems to easily defeat F-Secure self protection.
     
  19. saberfox

    saberfox Former Poster

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2008
    Posts:
    84
    So F-Secure failed to clean one piece of adware. Ergo, its cleaning abilities are not 100%. This also means that F-Secure is easily defeated by malware, and does not block what it detects.

    I smell an opportunistic troll hounding on this one example to vindicate his unfounded biases.

    Also, I guess this also shows how many people actually watched the video. F-Secure didn't seem to have detection for this particular adware, and it was the HIPS that failed to clean the malware off the system. Now if you load a HIPS onto an already infected system, and become flabbergasted because it doesn't remove the malware... I really don't know what to say.
     
  20. C.S.J

    C.S.J Massive Poster

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2006
    Posts:
    5,029
    Location:
    this forum is biased!
    be not had time to watch all the videos yet, but was f-secures rescue cd scanner used aswell?
     
  21. vijayind

    vijayind Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2008
    Posts:
    1,413
    opportunistic troll :D
    Thanks for the lovely complement.... :thumb:

    I would just like to say, that I stated F-Secure's inability in this forum from my personal experience long before the test. Then I received similar cynicism, now there is more proof I feel vindicated of sorts.

    F-Secure in my experience failed to stop an malware in real-time. When infected, the malware used to crash F-Secure whenever I started a scan. After I reported this to F-Secure Support, it came to view that I was infected. And the file in question had not been quarantined successfully.

    Now in Matt's test there seems to be a similar anomaly. Real-time scanner isn't fully able to stop ad-ware and self-protection seems to be compromised.

    Thats just my view....
     
  22. Jin K

    Jin K Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2008
    Posts:
    105
    same with my friend when he was testing it ><

    i realy dont know but some vendors just want to fill their pockets and it doesnt matter if their product realy work or not!!

    i feel sorry for everyone who use this and it dosent know the fact ><
     
    Last edited: Oct 4, 2008
  23. tiagozt

    tiagozt Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2004
    Posts:
    331
    I had no problems with F-Secure but the video really opens the possibility that one more fail in the software.
    Unfortunately what I see is that F-Secure has difficulties to improve its product. I sent many suggestions to F-Secure in the last year and they always say "thank you, we'll verify" but what I see is that they usually ignore everything. We, users, need to wait a lot to see changes. It's a lot different with Kaspersky Labs, that seems to work and improve its software every day and listen to user's opinion. I'm using F-Secure for more than 1 year with no problems about detection. I get and receive a lot of malwares daily to send to F-Secure labs and I never had an infection in my computer using F-Secure. The heuristic is improved now and I see that it's better than Kaspersky heuristic but F-Secure still has a lot of problems that are usually ignored. The support forum is very lazy and we need weeks to get an answer. The replies of malware samples are slow if the sender is in collectors list (I'm). A lot of things about F-Secure that turn me frustrated. Weeks ago I gave up but I received an e-mail of the team and decided to give one more chance. I'm still using FS but I really don't know for how many time. It's similar with my frustration when I used NOD32 an sent samples do ESET. I don't work with computer science and AV is a hobby for me. I have no commercial relationship with any company. I like to get samples and help improving a good AV software that I think can be better. But when I work a lot and receive no reply (it's not only about samples reply but about all feedback... of suggestions, of improvements...) its very frustrating.
     
  24. C.S.J

    C.S.J Massive Poster

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2006
    Posts:
    5,029
    Location:
    this forum is biased!
    well, I've never had any problems with f-secure, even during my own testing.
     
  25. risl

    risl Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2006
    Posts:
    581
    Not necessarily. Hooks can be replaced by another hook, or if the malware isn't capable of hooking at kernel level or injecting itself any deeper in the OS than the user mode. AV's have drivers to counter kernel level hooking(rootkits, etc.)and probably debugging rights and therefore can in some cases disinfect(override)the malware.

    .. Please, someone wiser than me correct if I'm wrong here :)
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.