MRG Flash Tests 2011

True, i guess they won't use the same samples since the latest tests software would have the advantage regarding time to update their signatures

 

Zemana AntiMalware results are up

 

Thanks.

 

Zemana AntiMalware results

Well it's really Hitman Pro of course

Only got pawned by 1 = Swisyn so pretty good result

 

Would Emsi/Ikarus scored the same detection as Zemana AM on an on demand scan of the same malware?

 

To be honest we don't really know but since EAM has all the signatures on hand and on top of this since they have the signatures locally i "guess" they can use more complex heuristics to detect malware

In short i don't really know but i would give EAM an advantage in that department just like any AV that keeps signatures locally

 

The only way to know for sure is to run Emsi against the same malware set as Zemana Antimalware.

 

Maybe that would be a good flash test- run on demand scans from each of the products on the same malware and compare results.

 

Not a bad idea but then that's more work for MRG and i don't think people consider it important, just curiosity (Although it would be really interesting for me)

 

This was the point I was trying to make before. I think the same set of malware should be used for each individual product test so a fair comparison can be made.

 

Only if the results for all the vendors are published at the same time. Otherwise, vendors can add signatures, change behavior blockers to fill in holes in their defenses.

 

And all samples should be tested the same day around the same time on the same environment.

 

Some could be luck of the draw. But all in all it should be very accurate. If you miss one or two today there might be a day you wouldn't have missed one. If you bomb today you probably would have bombed yesterday and you probably would bomb tomorrow. They have run pretty close to what I would have guessed so far. Best to wait and see how they compare to past tests. I want a program to protect me every day not just the easy ones while everybody is watching.A program doesn't have to have a perfect score, but it has to show consistent improvement , and some have and some don't seem to care.

 

DefenseWall+Emsisoft+Hitman pro and you're ready to go!

 

Why do MRG keep testing windows 7 32bits? There are more and more 64bits out there, specially Win7.

I don't know how far i can trust the test for a 64bits system..

 

Still waiting impatiently the results

 

I agree. Testing x64 systems would be good. 32-bit tests don't really reflect the system for many, many users... the playground is entirely different and the detection/prevention rates would be a lot different.

 

Maybe there is a place for both 32 and 64 bit system tests since 32 bit systems still exist. I still use one, but take the point newer machines are often now 64 bit only.

 

Single Product Flash Test – ESET Nod32 Antivirus, December 2011
http://malwareresearchgroup.com/201...sh-test-–-eset-nod32-antivirus-december-2011/
90% success rate, very respectable

 

does it state anywhere what the HIPS settings were?

 

well, I would think in the default setting which more or less, is like off.

All kidding aside, Eset was in a woeful downslide to the bottom 2 years ago and have really turned it around. Hate to say it, but, they are really at or near the top in detection. They deserve a big s up. I am so happy they found the path again.

 

I agree the default HIPS settings are not strong at all. On install are the HIPS on auto or learning mode or are they even active?

 

On install, HIPS is set to 'automatic mode with rules'. The HIPS seems similar in function to System Safety Monitor.
To see what 'automatic mode' blocks, check "Log all blocked operations" under HIPS->Advanced setup.

 

That remains to be seen. At some testing sites they are good and at another not so hot. I'm looking for some relative consistancy across the board which is what you should expect to see from a top tier product. I do hope they have turned it around.

 

This is only one test. Eset is still scoring 97-98% detection with Dynamic Testing
at AV-Comparatives. There are several AVs scoring over 99%.
Eset never scores that well with AV-Test.
The only good AV is the one that can catch the next piece of malware you come across.