Malware Research Group Rogue Software Infection Prevention test

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

Avira at the bottom, but the tests were done with default settings, and using default settings, the "Fraudulent software" option in the extended threat category is not checked in Avira.

 

Another one showing Eset doing very well , and Prevx not so well.

 

Both of their recommended products did really well MBAM and Bluepoint Security

 

im getting a Cure page
http://malwareresearchgroup.com/graphic.php

 

That MBAM does well against rogues can hardly come as a surprise?

 

What is that

 

i used a proxysite, now that site opened.

 

ummm....MRG recommending mbam....its really a new year.....

 

Actually MBAM doing this well is not a surprise but Bluepoint is

 

I have just read through the report (pdf)
This sort of testing is no use to me.
I don't want the malware to reach my desktop.
I am not going to disable my security to allow malware to 'drop in'

Is this really a recommendation for MRG.

 

They've done a test with settings at max, and AVIRA apparently missed 7 samples in this instance.

 

Well... this test say very few things. At least it says how a product will behave with default settings, but doesn't evaluate the full product detection rates.

 

Neither in Avast... PUP are disabled

 

I'm using default settings and KIS can detect errorkiller 2.6 via web protection. Although errorsmart does get through.

EDIT: errorkiller and errorsmart are the same program with different names, which explains why KIS misses both.

 

IIRC Avira's latest version is 9.0.0.456, why haven't they updated it?

 

SuperAntiSpyware failed again - congratulations to MBAM

Ad-Aware seems to be back as well ...

 

For me it is further confirmation as to the wisdom of running MBAM alongside your AV.
I admit disappointment of SAS.

Regards,
Jerry

 

Failed what? What I see there is a test of mostly non-widespread rogues, along with no data about the definition set they used on each product.

We focus on hard to remove spyware, we detect many rogues of course, but we prioritize on hard to detect and remove malware/spyware.

In today's market a single solution is not enough - for example, MBAM does great against the rogues (traces) - they don't do well against many hard to detect and remove rootkits and infections that overwrite USERINIT.EXE, etc. - SUPERAntiSpyware does do well against those - that's why combination solutions such as SAS+MBAM+AntiVirus (an antivirus solution) is the best protection against infections.

Where are the actual tests against the TDSS rootkit? How about Rustock? How about infections that log bank information, steal passwords, or represent actual threats to the user?

 

Jerry.....SUPERAntiSpyware has (self admitted by yourself) saved you in the past - but you seem to bash us at any chance, but when called out, you typically change your tune and admit that no single product can catch everything and that you yourself run SAS+MBAM+AntiVirus.

 

I don't see the point in testing bluepoint. It's kind of pointless it blocks every application from running unless you allow it. On the note of SAS: It doesn't have the highest detection rates in terms of overall malware but it has detected some pretty serious stuff for myself anyway that many others missed.

 

BPS was tested with default settings. On default settings BPS will show the user an alert on any file not on the whitelist and which is not detected by its cloud AM engine. In every case, BPS detected the rogue using its cloud AV engine. It didn't rely on whitelisting.

 

HI Nick,

Yes, recently a friend got a rogue, and we used both SAS and MBAM. SAS only did a partial removal, and it took MBAM to finally remove the rogue, antivir. I am convinced if we had tried MBAM first it would have detected and removed it. In that particular situation, MBAM was the better of the two.

I don't have any malware problems on my machines, and my friends do not either.
I only have tests to judge the effectiveness of applications. I also admit that I do not have the expertise to judge the malware/rogues used to test.
But when all is said and done, I have the impression that in most tests SAS does not do as well as others including MBAM.

I don't change my tune. I just look at the tests results. Since I did report that SAS was one of the applications to clean my friends computer I hardly see how that is bashing.
It has always been apparent that when some application does not do well the designers claim it is not a legitimate test. Well, the same malware is used to test that others have to encounter.

How is it bashing to state that I am disappointed in SAS when the results speak for themselves? MBAM was effective against 30 while SAS only 9. I am disappointed at what I consider a poor showing. It was effective for slightly less than a third of the samples.

I don't have anything against SAS, and as you know use it on both of my machines.
But if you think this or some other test is not a fair test of SAS then point out several other tests that are fair.
I do recall that Gizmo rated SAS the Best Free Adware/Spyware/Scumware Remover. That is good, but again just one.

In fact, I am not wedded to any software. I happen to be using KIS because it is the best for me, and use MBAM alongside it because I think it is the best anti-malware application. It also runs better on my system than SAS Pro when updating. But I'll dump all of those if they do not suit me, and if I think there are better applications.

I would really appreciate some test results that include SAS. How about finding 5 -6 tests that the folks here have some level of confidence in, and give the results.
My signature shows what I am running in real time. I also use SAS and A-squared to scan periodically.

Regards,
Jerry

 

http://malwareresearchgroup.com/graphic.php

Website unavailable

Is there a pdf report to put here?

 

http://malwareresearchgroup.com/?page_id=2
Check this out. At the end, you have: MRG RogueTest Jan 2010 (pdf)

 

nothing only this text as the photographs