MRG Flash Tests 2011

Immunet 76 = 49 + 27

No one commenting on that this "thingy" beats Avira,Avast,AVG,BitDefender,Eset,GData,Kaspersky,Panda...?

 

I think that's Immunet Plus (not free) with BitDefender engine

 

I beta tested Immunet v2 back then, it was a nice and light app, though their scan engines still needed to mature. According to MRG's test it seems that they have with v3, so I think I'm going to check it out soon.

 

Yes, that's correct. Immunet has it's own in-house developed engines in the cloud, and the Plus version has a local BitDefender engine. Both have since recently also a local ClamAV engine, but I think it was disabled by default because of slowdowns.

 

You are wrong on several levels. The fact that you won't leave this subject alone compels me to respond to your misinterpretation of the meaning and, yes, the use of the term useless. Uselessness is a term that is applied by individuals to things as per their needs and tastes and requirements. You have been oh-so-quick to call anyone who disagrees with you stupid, worthless, not valid and more. Maybe you should take some time to read again the "supporting evidence" that has already been provided.

For starters, as I stated here, "when a security software fails repeated tests 7 or 8 times out of 10, in the context of this topic, the software is ineffectual, or useless." To which you replied, "Fine with me, it's ineffectual. Useless means 0 passes overall, unless there's something wrong with your definition."

Nothing wrong with "my" definition, I then said here, and I supplied a Merriam-Webster definition of useless that is: having or being of no use, or ineffectual.

So to summarize so far, you've agreed that SAS is ineffectual ("Fine with me, it's ineffectual"), you then proceeded to write your own definition of the word useless ("Useless means 0 passes overall") and then you asked for my definition, to which I supplied the Webster definition. But you continue to ask for supporting evidence from "valid dictionaries". What part of Miriam-Webster's definition don't you understand?

Moving on, let's let's look at just a few examples of uselessness, though there are hundreds or even thousands. And remember, uselessness is a term that is applied by individuals to things as per their needs and tastes and requirements.

A man wishes to run a 26-mile marathon. He desires to wear running shoes, for he has determined that they are best, and of greatest use to him. He has no use for a pair of hiking boots to run his race. Hiking boots are useless to him. But you are quick to point out that hiking boots have some use, and are therefore not useless. Wrong. The marathon runner makes the call here, not you.

A particular investor has strict standards by which he invests. He insists on a minimum of 7% return on his investment in order to achieve his financial goals in a given time period. An instrument or investment that returns 1% has no value to him, it does not meet his requirements. It is useless to him. But you are quick to point out that the 1% return is at least something, therefore not useless. Wrong. The investor makes the call and 1% to him is useless.

A family of 6 needs to go on vacation to a town 200 miles away. They'd like to take their mini-van that seats them all comfortably. Someone suggests a motorcycle. Naturally a motorcycle would require multiple round trips to ferry all family members to the desired location, they couldn't carry their luggage with them, and inclement weather would be uncomfortable. A motorcycle is useless to get the family to their destination. But you are quick to point out that some people ride motorcycles and they work fine for them, therefore they are not useless. Wrong. The vacationing family makes the call, and a motorcycle is useless to them.

SAS is useless to me if I require more of a security app than a 26% success ratio. But you are quick to point out that SAS does succeed some of the time, therefore it is not useless. Wrong. I consider 26% pass ratio to be ineffective. I make the call, and SAS is useless to me. Saying that anyone who likewise labels SAS useless is stupid, doesn't get it, is not valid or their opinions are BS, is in itself wrong.

Your own interpretation of uselessness is obvious. I object to your insistence that everyone must agree with your interpretation, or else be subjected to your anger and ridicule. In my opinion, the average individual who looks at the MRG Flash Tests results (and that is the context of this thread) would not conclude that SAS is effective. And as I have pointed out with a number of examples, uselessness is in the eye of the beholder (and in the Merriam-Webster dictionary), and not for you to arbitrarily decide for others.

 

An astute observation. If you check the history of this MRG series you'll even notice Immunet scored detections when Bitdefender itself failed.

But since way back in 2009 in an online interview pasted into a thread here, some one from Immunet made comments about Prevx which weren't quite welcomed by the entrenched fanboiz here at the Web site hosting the Offishul Prevx Sopport Forim. Immunet has pretty much remained invisible around here. Unless the opportunity for heaping scorn or the usual witless misinformation presents itself.

 

An excellent example of useless is this discussion of SAS. Not that I mind at all the thread I started is climbing toward 1000 posts.
.

 

If by recent you mean version 2.0.x released in December 2010, then yes. It's been that long.

As in slowdowns experienced by the likes of Atom, Celeron, and AMD E and C series systems.
.

 

Ha ha! Good one.
But tell it to the guy who rehashed the discussion after a 12 day absence.

 

v2.0.x was released back in June 2010 and ClamAV was added in 3.0, released February 2011(That can't be called recently either .)
-http://blog.immunet.com/blog/2011/2/7/version-30-the-next-step-in-anti-malware-protection.html-

oh, I thought it was a general issue. Is it still disabled by default?

 

It is poor, but not useless. I've said that many times already.

Both are quite similar.

I don't, I just hate bashers without good reason (not necessarily including you).

Being nice doesn't really get my point across.

I was always talking about the first meaning (having or being of no use).

Wrong, wearing shoes always have the use of providing protection.

Something that gets you there on time in the first place cannot be useless.

Mathematically and rationally, it simply isn't useless. It's your personal opinion, which I have no intention of changing. My responses to you reflect yours to mine.

It sure is. My anger and ridicule are my opinions in response to others anger and lack of reason. I've never said it's effective, that's another point I'm constantly repeating. Except it isn't the same definition.

 

Saying something is useless and saying something is useless for ____ are two different things.

But either way it's semantics and really pretty irrelevant.

 

Yes,I saw that couple months ago and thought it´s worth keeping eye on it (Immunet).

 

All results are only valid in context - maybe SAS is just consistently slower at new detections. Still effective for cleaning in the real world, and has always been WinPE friendly. The other thing to consider are all the repair options for when malware alters or breaks various system settings.

I've never recommended SAS realtime, as I've never considered it worth the extra resources compared to what it adds. In this regard Malwarebyte's realtime guard is clearly superior.

Malwarebytes Anti-Malware is the first automated scan I'll use when tackling an infected machine from Windows itself - but I've seen SAS find and remove rootkits that MBAM has missed. The authors of Malwarebytes reportedly strung one group of WinPE developers along just long enough to learn how to disable future versions of MBAM on the rescue disc - not an honest behaviour if there is truth behind this allegation.

I'm a big fan of MBAM, but I don't consider the MRG tests alone as fodder to say SAS is useless or even ineffective. It does validate my opinion that MBAM is overall superior at up-to-date detections, and more reliable as a preventative.

 

Technically, ClamV went live in the Dec 2010 beta of Immunet 2.0.18.76.
-http://forum.immunet.com/index.php?/topic/562-clamav-for-windows-beta-clamlib-integration/-
Exactly when that went out of beta is something I'm too lazy to look up. And I don't care. But ClamAV showed up in v2.

Yes. it still is disabled by default. My reference to those processors was merely a technical generalization meaning more or less "even if recently manufactured, systems with these still current procs are pathetically underpowered and software developers must take that into account to protect the unfortunate souls who bought them." I'm surprised you didn't pick up on that.

 

Ah, ok, so still not recently

I probably missed it because I was very tired. My sister bought a netbook with an Atom as well and complains a lot about slowness

 

More RAM will do wonders for slowness.

 

You win the debate.

Really... not just say'in..

You own the logic and reason.

Now don't respond to him...

Thank you.

 

Again, it's semantics and irrelevant.

Though I will say that I think J_L is right. It is obviously not universally useless if you can find any use for it. It is only useless when you add parameters such as "For me" or "For blocking infections" or "For cleaning infections." and that's not what useless means... unless you add those parameters.

But I'm so not getting into this lol just semantics and it has no real bearing on anything.

 

You know, I think you are absolutely right, it's semantics and irrelevant.

 

We need a new Flash Test.

 

Ain't it the truth!

 

Totally agree with you

 

Are MRG Tests of such great Importance/Validity/Reliability

so that someone can surely/safely conclude that product X is useless etc. ?

 

In my opinion yes. Had alot to do with me purchasing Win. 7 32 bit to use DefensWall.