Malware Research Group Flash Tests

We included Hitman Pro in these tests at the request of the vendor.

We have updated the report to indicate it was the full version of MBAM that was used.

Regards,
Sveta

 

Doesn't make sense to me. You put all that effort into the testing (and I can see that it must have been a lot of effort), but then record the results as a simple pass/fail - a real imbalance between the 'field work' and the final write up. There could have been some real interesting discussion if we'd been able to see the detail behind the results.
And sure, it's not standard practice for a testing organisation to do that, but there's no rules against it. You've never been an organisation to abide by 'standard practices' in the past, e.g. your browser security test where you highlighted which security apps protected the customer even where they'd allowed the malware to infect the system.

I stand by what I say...a real lost opportunity. But thanks for all the work and effort you did.

 

I bet you know malwares and anti-malware programs won't run in a virtual environment like they do in real environment.

This only "detail" should disqualify your test as reliable.

 

You missed the critical word "some". Some malware doesn't run in a VM. And if you're not testing VM aware malware then it's irrelevant. I've only come across one or two anti-malware apps that don't run in VMs.

 

@Scoobs72: Yes, some.
But some others run with limited actions. There isn't "all or nothing". It could be also "some"

 

It is true that some malwares are VM aware and it would be pointless to test them inside VM's don't you think. When we need to, we conduct testing on real systems.

Regards,
Sveta

 

Every sample is always verified before the testing begins, missed samples sent to vendors......

Regards,
Sveta

 

thats why MBAM deserves even more "respect", its a single engine scan and put dozens of AV on shame