Latest test from the Malware Research Group Project #19

The latest test results have just been published by MRG:

http://malwareresearchgroup.com/?page_id=2

Puss

 

Re: Latest test from the Malware Research Group

No false positive test.

 

Re: Latest test from the Malware Research Group

i can not enter the site

 

Re: Latest test from the Malware Research Group

~removed tinyurl that directed one to a "Proxy Avoidance" site~

 

Well done Comodo . Looks like you`re almost there

 

The top five seem to be getting consistent results. Bit of a jump for Norman, compared to other tests. And Comodo seems to improving fast.

Regarding Dr.Web, I just don't buy that the hairy Clam has higher detection. Maybe Dr.Web works best when launching/installing a program.

 

I never understood the Dr. Web results, in my tests and my past usage it's always worked brilliantly and is by far one of the best cleanup tools too.

 

Very nice test, looks like Comodo is climbing up the table and also glad to see Avira and A2 are still on top, lets not start with the false positives again...
Dr.Web never did great in tests, mine or other people's, maybe it is not able to deal with large samples packages, or there may be something else that is the problem

 

It's always been like that. I've used Dr.Web since 2007 and probably never during this period they have received good results if the test is about scanning through thousands or more of samples. They do get good results in polymorphic tests, self-protection, curing, anti-rootkit tests and all that "extra/advanced" stuff.

It's not very encouraging to us Dr.Web users that they don't have all this success in testing, performing worse than Clam and so on. What I've understood is that they have a vision of what an antivirus should be and they refuse to change that just to success in testing. The classical words were something like "it's designed to protect, not to pass tests." Some may think they are stubborn, and some respect them for doing things their own way.

 

Is this not the same as this https://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?t=240856&highlight=squared and is this not their (Emsi) own sample testing?

ds

 

Interesting, but quite off the mark... if you take a closer look EMSI used less then 40k of samples, in this test MRG team used over 600k of samples, other programs were used and the results are totally different if you count out the first 3 places which is not a surprise as they are taking top positions in almost all the tests.

So what is your point once again?

 

Hi Astech,

It was more of a question then a statement....so I am not really sure I was trying to make a point, once again!?

 

No harm done, I was just trying to figure out if there were any similarities with these two tests, that is all

 

You are not the only one who does not understand these and similar results.

 

Maybe Dr.Web don't include some 'junk' others include. I don't know. I'd still rely on Dr.Web.

Only have to take a look at their link checker and CureIt to realise how useful the program is.

 

Not many surprises here.
I do wonder, since I've used Commodo in the past, how much better it would have done, if any, by putting it in ProActive defense?

 

Comodo is the only surprise for me in the test.

 

Ok, I'm bad.
This was an on demand scan test.
Well it is Father's Day today and maybe I had one to many brewskis.

 

A-squared is really that good?

 

Well it does use its own database together with Ikarus afterall.

 

Positively or negatively ?

eXPerience

 

For my part I would say it did very good. The score is very decent and close to the top-competitors. Can't wait till v4.

 

Right... Thanks for the info.

 

Comodo is getting better, I don't see why some of their members (on Comodo forums) think that 1% is not enough progress, 1% improved detection rate is awesome if you ask me and especially if that is a constant trend.
a-squared has excellent detection rate, 2 engines, Ikarus has high detection rates on its own (not mentioning FP's this time), so adding extra engine and set of signatures will only improve detection. In my opinion a-squared will most probably get top position on all the tests if there wasn't that issue with FP's.

 

Every test has its own strengths and weaknesses, but on-demand scan tests (such as this Malware Research Group investigation) may not properly reflect the relative, real-world performance of an anti-malware vendor’s product. Scanning is, after all, a “last resort” line of defense -- thus product comparisons based upon scanning may have limited utility.

A better measure, in my opinion, is the extent to which the anti-malware product prevents intrusions. Since blocking exploits involves the use of both signatures as well as behavior-based analyses, making an inference about a product’s preventative performance from a result based only upon scanning is questionable. As the Anti-Malware Testing Standards Organization has noted…

Source: Best Practices for Dynamic Testing