MRG Effitas 360 Assessment & Certification - Q2 2016

Discussion in 'other anti-virus software' started by LagerX, Sep 9, 2016.

  1. LagerX

    LagerX Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2008
    Posts:
    540
    MRG Effitas 360 Assessment & Certification Q2 2016



      • 16 applications tested
      • 401 In-the-Wild malware samples used
      • Operating System: Windows 10 x64
      • Browser: Edge
      • Real World scenario with no user initiated threat neutralization
    https://www.mrg-effitas.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/MRG-Effitas-360-Assessment-Q2-2016.pdf
     
  2. shadek

    shadek Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2008
    Posts:
    2,363
    Location:
    Sweden
    Only Kaspersky ace test after test, after test after test and so on. They're certainly a rockstar in testing environments.
     
  3. lordraiden

    lordraiden Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2006
    Posts:
    3,078
    I wonder how webroot made them look like a good AV if they are always the last ones in any test.

    Malwarebytes need to do something fast if they don't want to lose the market they have or disappear.
     
  4. anon

    anon Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2012
    Posts:
    4,097
    AVG, Bitdefender, ESET, Panda failed! o_O
    (Failed = Security product failed to detect all infections and remediate the system during the test procedure.)
     
  5. shadek

    shadek Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2008
    Posts:
    2,363
    Location:
    Sweden
    Agreed. Webroot really, really disappoints me.
     
  6. ArchiveX

    ArchiveX Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2014
    Posts:
    1,016
    Kaspersky! :thumb:
     
  7. Thankful

    Thankful Savings Monitor

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2005
    Posts:
    3,741
    Location:
    New York City
    Microsoft doing as well as most paid solutions in terms of initial detection rates.
     
  8. shadek

    shadek Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2008
    Posts:
    2,363
    Location:
    Sweden
    Windows Defender did really well compared to for instance Webroot and Bitdefender which did worse than WD.
     
  9. harsha_mic

    harsha_mic Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2009
    Posts:
    791
    Location:
    India
    Is Smartscreen detections considered when testing Windows Defender? Any insight would be helpful..

    Thanks, Harsha.
     
  10. Muddy3

    Muddy3 Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2010
    Posts:
    243
    Location:
    Belgium
    I don't want to come across as someone who is always defending Webroot but I do think it is important to examine carefully the results in the light of the method Webroot uses, i.e. monitor any processes that are suspicious but not yet proven 100% to be malware, and during that "probation" period give them such limited privileges that they cannot do any harm to the machine, whilst any changes that they do make can be subsequently reversed through the rollback feature if and when found to be malware.

    In that light, it should be noted that 100% of financial malware was detected and removed within 24 hours, 100% of ransomware was detected and removed within 24 hours, and 96% of all samples tested were detected and removed within 24 hours.

    The question that would be interesting to ask and to have an answer to is: What was the status of that 4% of samples that had not been detected and removed? Were they in "probation", in which case they would have been prevented from doing any harm to the machine and would presumably later (24? 36? 72? hours later??) have (hopefully) been detected and removed and any changes they had made to the system been reversed thanks to the rollback feature?

    Difficult to understand this (or indeed explain it to others) unless you have been using the programme in realtime for a long time. I have now been using it for 10 years (Prevx 2006-2011-->Webroot 2011-2016) and have been really impressed with its ability to protect all my machines.
     
  11. ProTruckDriver

    ProTruckDriver Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2008
    Posts:
    769
    Location:
    "Here on Wilders"
    Agree Muddy3. My family has been using WSA since it was launched and we have never been infected. My grandchildren have WSA on their computers, and you know how teenagers are. They have never been infected either. :thumb:
     
  12. Cache

    Cache Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2016
    Posts:
    224
    You may well be right there Muddy. However I have a theory that at least some of these "fails" may well be PUAs that MRG clearly state they are using as samples and that, as we all know, WSA is not as aggressive at preventing as other AVs.
    I have already referred this in the Webroot community and await clarification.
     
    Last edited: Sep 9, 2016
  13. Muddy3

    Muddy3 Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2010
    Posts:
    243
    Location:
    Belgium
    Good point :). I hadn't picked up on that one. It would be interesting (and imo a good idea) if they were to group PUA's as a separate category.
     
  14. Thankful

    Thankful Savings Monitor

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2005
    Posts:
    3,741
    Location:
    New York City
    Eset disables protecting against PUAs by default, and may be the reason they did not receive certification. Other programs may have a similar issue.
     
  15. lordraiden

    lordraiden Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2006
    Posts:
    3,078
    It is a fail because the computer ends infected, and wsa fails to defend the system, period. It's a simulation of a real situation and not a detection test.

    Everything else is marketing in order to try to explain the poor resuts
     
  16. Cache

    Cache Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2016
    Posts:
    224
    Having PUAs disabled may well have contributed to ESET's fail but I suspect there is more to it than that. ESET is showing about a 7.5% fail rate in the Full Spectrum test and about a 4% fail in the financial malware test.
     
  17. eddiewood

    eddiewood Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2006
    Posts:
    105
    I fail to see the point of testing complimentary products like HitmanPro in isolation. The clue is the word "complimentary", they aren't meant to be used in isolation as they aren't resident in memory.

    HitmanPro scores badly on ransomware because you use HitmanPro.Alert to prevent the encryption happening in the first place. No on demand scanner is going to help with ransomware when it isn't memory resident!

    Their "real World" testing methodology is either flawed or they are clueless about the products they test. If they can't be bothered to understand what a product is then why trust their conclusions on the other products on test?

    If the point was a real World test then it would be:

    Anti-virus + Hitmanpro.Alert (which contains HitmanPro for on demand scan).

    (as a HitmanPro.Alert user I can only assume the same can be said of the other two complimentary products, Malwarebytes and Zemana).
     
  18. Muddy3

    Muddy3 Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2010
    Posts:
    243
    Location:
    Belgium
    Read carefully again what I say. (I couldn't care less about marketing, and I do agree that Webroot's marketing sometimes goes over the top frankly, but that has absolutely nothing to do with what I said)
     
  19. Azure Phoenix

    Azure Phoenix Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2014
    Posts:
    359
    Well, according to @hjlbx Webroot's rollback feature doesn't always work.
     
  20. Triple Helix

    Triple Helix Webroot Product Advisor

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2004
    Posts:
    12,012
    Location:
    Ontario, Canada
    And he is an expert on Webroot SecureAnywhere? No one said the Rollback Feature is Perfect but they always continue to build upon with every new update. You MalwareTips boys really push the envelop here on Wilders.
     
  21. Muddy3

    Muddy3 Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2010
    Posts:
    243
    Location:
    Belgium
    According to, according to.........

    Of course, nothing works perfectly in this world (far from :(!) as your signature citation eloquently affirms. But it has worked sufficiently well to keep me, a not very safe user, free from malware and viruses for 10 years.
     
  22. Azure Phoenix

    Azure Phoenix Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2014
    Posts:
    359
    Guys, try not take everything as some sort of personal attack.

    Yeah, I know not everything works perfectly. That's why things get reported, fixed and improved
     
  23. Triple Helix

    Triple Helix Webroot Product Advisor

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2004
    Posts:
    12,012
    Location:
    Ontario, Canada
    But you pointed to another member and IMO is no Webroot Expert. So why point to him? I see no personal attack but pointing to users that don't have the full picture have no idea.
     
  24. Macstorm

    Macstorm Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2005
    Posts:
    2,531
    Location:
    Sneffels volcano
    Couldn't say better myself :thumb:
     
  25. PeZzy

    PeZzy Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2011
    Posts:
    50
    PC Mag uses malware supplied by MRG Effitas and their last malware detection result was only 84%.
     
Loading...