MRG Flash Tests 2011

After many hours of dedicated enthusiasm I managed to master the Search function of Google. I never did know what that lovely logo meant. What is more, I even found that Wilders has previously been in action on this matter. Well we are never too old to learn.

Actually my post asked what every other reader would ask - where is Comodo ? Nobody is going to search the net in some massive personal research program to find out. Why should they ? MRG produce some second rate results in a "Buyers Guide" context, so that is what a reader is presented with. A kind-of John Doe`s guide to the Galaxy. It would have been nice to have had my query answered instead of instructing me to learn all about using Search functions.

I did read the posts concerning the Comodo vs. MRG controversy and it does not take a Masters Degree in literature to conclude that the Comodo exclusion is no more than a petty squabble on minor issues between the two administrations. So as MRG could not win their case and Comodo "hurt their feelings", MRG took the ball away and excluded the worlds most highly acclaimed security program. It rather looks as if Comodo do not have confidence in the MRG test criteria or methods of testing.

Prior to this playground squabble, Comodo was included in the MRG test list and apparently came TOP.

My conclusion is that the dubious but eye catching practice of ranking products by some self appointed unofficial organization into a Pass/Fail league table is completely unreliable and misleading, but is popular with the general public.

Excluding Comodo ? Then these comparative results are worthless. A much better picture can be obtained by simply browsing the net.

John

 

Emsisoft is back on track
And suprise comes from kaspersky, they did rather well lately

 

Without icon usage, you're sarcasm (or is it meant cynical?) isn't clear cut.
Or are you actually serious about 'The Claim', Bull?

And regarding the validity of the MRG tests discussed, if Nossirah is willing to spend (even a small amount of) time here on Wilders to weigh it's merits, it can't be without some validity.

 

The way I look at it goes like this. They have decided to create a test with a narrow and IMO valid focus. Long before MBAM I advocated 'pulled from web' testing over 'pile of samples' testing so yes, I do like what they are doing.

There are already many organizations that do broad spectrum testing so there was no need for them to replicate something that is already done to death.

 

I guess this is only your personal guess. Where did you get this fact from?

They only trust Matousec... go figure...

Following your reasoning, we can derive that, since Comodo is not taking part of AV-C, VB, AV-T tests, then their results are worthless aswell. Really?

 

it took part in icsalabs and westcoastlabs. below is the link where u see list of all it participated in..
http://forums.comodo.com/news-annou...ifications-test-results-reviews-t61263.0.html

av-c already said its going to perform individual product test...

 

Are they not?
http://www.virusbtn.com/vb100/latest_comparative/index

 

New trojan banker:
http://malwareresearchgroup.com/2011/03/mrg-flash-test-3032011/

Avira - Generic
AVG - Generic
Emsisoft - Generic (Ikarus)
Nod32 - Heuristic
Immunet - Cloud
McAfee - Generic
Norton - Sonar
Panda - Heuristic
Vipre - Generic
Malwarebytes - IP Block

 

I put the Bull on ignore long ago. He tends toward sensational comments & often gets threads off-topic when more reasonable folks attempt to deal with his absurdities. Responding to his off-the-wall posts simply plays the Bull's game of verbal ping-pong. An "ignore" works much better -- at least it does for me.

 

Malware that is widespread on the Web and that is easy to come upon by the average user is also live and dangerous. In fact, malware that is widespread is more dangerous for the vast majority of users than malware that is hard to find. Of course, it is possible to conduct tests with these 'hard to find' malware samples, but there is a question regarding the practical value of the results of such tests.

What exactly do you mean when you say "narrow focus"? Majority of the samples are keyloggers, but there are also trojans, rootkits, worms, spyware. So, obviously, their tests are not focused on a particular type of malware.

I think that question concerning the selection of samples to be used has great importance to the validity of their work. Unlike other organizations that do similar testing MRG methodology is unclear to me. To be honest, if it is not clear who is the source of the samples and, in particular, how they choose samples for testing (since they use only a single sample for each testing) one might think that a test has no specific value, but that simply serves to advertise some antimalware software products that actually do not have nearly as good detection of the everyday struggle with malware!?

 

I like Vipre's results thus far.

 

The way I see it they exclude the stuff that nearly everyone already detects due to it being widespread. Do you actually want yet another test where nearly everyone is over 90%? I would argue that a test where the miss % is not pinned to a specific date is meaningless. If your app of choice detects 99.9% of samples in a test, who is to say the .1% is not all from the last 48 hours? That is a 99.9% hard core fail yet it looks amazingly good on paper.

They created a test that is hard to pass unless you can stop new and nasty stuff. They did not create a test that is designed to replace existing broad spectrum testing.

If you think they are playing favorites then why is Norton doing so well?

And for the record, I see a LOT of both spyeyes and zbots collected from AV protected real world systems. There is one guy in particular that seems to have a few of both every day that next to no one detects pulled from the systems he services.

 

Woaaah, how do you know what were the detection results?

 

Inside intel

Nah, just their public forum
http://forums.malwareresearchgroup.com/viewtopic.php?f=18&t=561&start=50

 

but those change with each detection. Sometimes generic, sometimes hueristics.

 

MRG website is a mess (it seems that the Sveta is busy with testing and do not arrive to deal with website ). I cannot find the information which Vipre Active Protection Unknown Programs Settings they used? Whether it is already mentioned in this topic? Test report does not contain many important information.

 

I couldn't find it @ the forum, but iirc they use default settings on all the products. So Allow Unknown Programs under Active Protection should be ticked.

 

Hello Baserk, love your comments. Whoever Nossirah is, he can spend whatever time he likes to waste on this irrelevant matter whether on Wilder's or anywhere else he wishes.

Bottom line on MRG - it does not matter what these people do or test, the results are irrelevant. They are just a one man`s comparison of program merits. I could do that and so could you. It is just an opinion and everybody has one.

Firefox is the most brilliant browser available in the world today and with AVG 2011 provides a secure combination. If MRG find faults with AVG, then who cares ? I don`t give a fig.

Sandboxie covers any deficiencies that AVG may have in the eyes of MRG testing, so the entire exercise is futile.

I will not even waste my time looking at any future MRG output or reading posts concerning them. If Comodo has no confidence in MRG, who am I to disagree ? Comodo know more about security than MRG could learn in a decade.

This thread is colossal a waste of time. I am backing out, I have better things to do.

John

Apologies - edited for correction of content.

 

Please stop your trolling posts then at least, you are helping no one with this, maybe your own ego only.

Gerard

 

New trojan dropper:
http://malwareresearchgroup.com/2011/03/mrg-flash-test-3032011-2/

Avast - Generic
AVG - Generic
BitDefender - Generic
Emsisoft - Generic (Ikarus)
Nod32 - Heuristic
Kaspersky - Signature
Norton - Sonar
Vipre - Generic
Malwarebytes - Signature
SuperAntispyware - Generic

All products use default settings:

http://malwareresearchgroup.com/2011/03/mrg-flash-test-3032011-2/

 

No one knows the answer to this?

 

Anth-Unit, http://remove-malware.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=8432&p=75721#p75721.

Whether this has changed for the 2011 tests or not, I do not know.

 

I like when they post the method of dectection.
So it seems that MBAM ip blocking does wonders

 

3/7 Test , http://malwareresearchgroup.com/2011/03/mrg-flash-test-3072011/
Another Emsisoft FAIL.

 

So far Vipre, MBAM and DefenseWall have nailed 'em all. 25 for 25