Immunet review (Softpedia)

Discussion in 'other anti-virus software' started by dr pan k, Jun 22, 2010.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. dr pan k

    dr pan k Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2007
    Posts:
    204
    Review article from softpedia:

    http://www.softpedia.com/reviews/windows/Immunet-Protect-Review-145006.shtml

    Among others:

    "Regarding the detection level of Immunet Protect, at this moment it is not even close to being good. During our tests the application left a lot of threats behind, detecting only 4,276 out of the 16,576 (26% detection rate)."

    "Although it did not prove efficient protection for the system on its own, the application is definitely worth installing. It does not use too much of the computer resources and it is compatible with plenty of reputed antivirus products."
     
  2. raven211

    raven211 Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 4, 2005
    Posts:
    2,567
    It does look like Immunet will remain a "conjunction AV", and I don't mean anything bad with that in particular, cause that's what the devs. have said it's. Really, what I think is worrying is companies, in general, still releasing pure detection-based software, and not policy-based (behavior detecting) software - it's simply the only way to go right now, being realistic.
     
  3. clocks

    clocks Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2007
    Posts:
    2,562
    Article says it uses 40meg of ram and CPU between 20-40%. That is complete crap. More like 4meg of ram, with 0-4% of the CPU.
     
  4. Pedersen

    Pedersen Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 4, 2010
    Posts:
    234
    test from me. 5391 malware.
    5126 detect, 50 missed quarantine. pretty good
    Malwarebyte 4816 detect ;)
     
  5. raven211

    raven211 Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 4, 2005
    Posts:
    2,567
    ... and the details of the samples tested are? :rolleyes:
     
  6. AvinashR

    AvinashR Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2009
    Posts:
    2,060
    Location:
    New Delhi Metallo β-Lactamase 1
    We should keep our testings aside and should focus on the strong points of Immunet...
     
  7. ALookingInView

    ALookingInView Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2009
    Posts:
    365
    I haven't paid much attention to this particular product, what exactly are its strong points?

    It seems to have quite a buzz surrounding it and thus far I've just assumed it was due to many people's never-ending need to burden their PCs with layer upon layer and the fact that there is a free version.
     
  8. Pleonasm

    Pleonasm Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2007
    Posts:
    1,201
    A good question -- one that I have been asking, too.

    More generally, how does Immunet Protect seek to achieve competitive differentiation? Or, stated in another way, why should a consumer choose Immunet Protect versus any one of the other well-established and well-respected anti-malware solutions?
     
  9. whitedragon551

    whitedragon551 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2008
    Posts:
    3,189
    Location:
    USA
    That was probably during the update which pulls the definitions from IP's server. That also likely explains the bad detection test.
     
  10. clocks

    clocks Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2007
    Posts:
    2,562
    Yep, probably right.
     
  11. Pedersen

    Pedersen Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 4, 2010
    Posts:
    234
    Guys we have wondered over the low detection and we think we found the problem.

    The test was made by scan (which consumes this amount of cpu) and a bug which should be fixed in next build causes agent.exe to "hanging cpu usage" when used in test (big malware samples test). This cause agent.exe to stay at the high consuming of resources but should go away after a restart.

    The detection testing part was done meanwhile we maintenance some of our cloud servers. This maintenance caused an error on 4 of our servers which did the cloud didn't responded probably to the malware test.
    This is one of the weakness of cloud but should not happen again.
     
  12. JoeBlack40

    JoeBlack40 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2009
    Posts:
    1,572
    Location:
    Romania
    Oh please......you already come up with a comparison?Remember that despite its name,MBAM is not a replacement for an AV,but IMP claimed it is.And it sucks.
    Just for compare....i highly doubt that IMP detects more rogues or any other malware than MBAM.
     
    Last edited: Jun 22, 2010
  13. LagerX

    LagerX Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2008
    Posts:
    540

    Since when Immunet claimed that IMP is replacement for an AV product?:ninja:
     
  14. JoeBlack40

    JoeBlack40 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2009
    Posts:
    1,572
    Location:
    Romania
    Their paid version.
     
  15. lordraiden

    lordraiden Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2006
    Posts:
    3,085
    Your highly doubts based on nothing are just this, nothing. Why are you comparing IMP+ with MBAM despite they are different products?
    Why are you crying about MBAM here? this threat is not for that.
     
  16. LagerX

    LagerX Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2008
    Posts:
    540
    Then say so. IMP+
    Softpedia:
     
  17. JoeBlack40

    JoeBlack40 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2009
    Posts:
    1,572
    Location:
    Romania
    Read carefully all the posts,i'm not the one which began comparisons between this and that,IMP detects this and MBAM that.I'm not crying for MBAM,just state the facts.And i'm not going to give you detections % from my tests.My highly doubts are based on my experience,and that's that.
    I know that.Correction.IMP Plus.Thank you.
     
    Last edited: Jun 23, 2010
  18. whitedragon551

    whitedragon551 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2008
    Posts:
    3,189
    Location:
    USA
    Then your testing is invalid and doesnt matter.
     
  19. JoeBlack40

    JoeBlack40 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2009
    Posts:
    1,572
    Location:
    Romania
    I believe this review -http://www.youtube.com/user/languy99#p/u/3/krU9zPrP52g- is invalid and doesn't matter too.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 23, 2010
  20. whitedragon551

    whitedragon551 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2008
    Posts:
    3,189
    Location:
    USA
    Except Languy is a respected reviewer who discloses his information. You just make baseless claims to your review.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 23, 2010
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.