Discussion in 'other anti-malware software' started by LoneWolf, Aug 16, 2009.
Let's not forget the comical law threat.
it still ~Phrase removed~ just based on other products, Puss use to rave about.
Thank you Paul, I am going back to basics and what is safe and has been talked about here at Wilders for years so you know it and a few other products can be trusted.
You hadn't figured?
I was fascinated by Retardpuss' ferocious anti Malwarebytes stance. Just didn't seem true. I was wondering why he never stated he actually had something to do with the MRG testing. Maybe I missed him saying so, but I knew, anyway.
Busted well and truely Sveta,
There is no way your tests can be treated as credible since you yourself have been exposed for such unethical and misleading practices
I hope that a pall is not cast over the programs/vendors (like Prevx, Emsisoft, Tallemu) that did well in this test. Does anyone believe that there is a guilt-by-association likelihood here, just because they were tested by an entity that has been shown to be suspect?
No, the programs have shown to be good - but the fact that the winners are the one plastered all over the signatures of the people in question makes me wonder the validity of the test results.
Seriously, I don't really care about all these ethics etc haha. Joking joking. I guess I'll respect those that do.
What I'd like to ask (again), is how Comodo's Defense+ and Online Armor's HIPS failed some of these tests? I thought all the malware tested were simply rogue software that needed to be executed? So is MRG suggesting that some of these rogue software products have bypassed the "initial execution" pop-up of at least 2 classical HIPS products? If so, can I please have the samples to test? Otherwise, I refuse to believe it haha.
They promote Fud if they play games such as this! But the results are no surprise to any of us!
This Reg Genie installer (which OA failed) is signed by Comodo.
I assume it is this RegGenieSetup.exe.
And about the super independent sockpuppets etc. ...
Again, I am amazed that even one rogue software got past the "initial execution" pop-up of Comodo and Online Armor. Can you please PM me the samples? Thanks a lot!
Just google for "reggenie".
It's not really very Rogue, maybe a little.
You mean this?
You sure it's rogue?
Yes, but maybe there is another Reg Genie out there.
Don't ask me, I didn't choose it for a Rogue Software Test.
I think OA wont pop-up if the executable is signed by a known entity within its DB, which I think Comodo is. Since RegGenie per the claims of subset is signed by Comodo...
EDIT: I recall once installing mbam without a single pop-up from OA without entering learning mode.
Yes, if it is a known safe program, Comodo and OA will not pop-up on initial execution, and at times, they won't pop-up at all throughout installation. This makes sense.
But we are talking about genuine rogue software here. Anyway, seeing as MRG people have failed to reply to me, I'll just assume they didn't use the HIPS components properly of Comodo and OA.
Was Vipre realtime protection set on High or Low?
I wouldn't worry about any of the results after reading this thread.
Really makes me wonder how many more people are engaged in this kind of activity at Wilders.
Well if the rogue software is signed by Comodo as forumite Subset claims...
Subset is saying that there is "genuine malware" out there that go by the same name as "genuine software" (more specifically, there is "genuine malware" that goes by the name of reggenie, and there's also "genuine software" that has the same name). "Genuine malware" will not make Comodo's trusted database, otherwise we'd be seeing millions of malware bypass Comodo everyday.
I doubt there are many more people like this, if any, on this forum. Even then, one must always learn to think for themselves, and not rely on some apparent "expert". If in doubt, just fire up a sandboxed VM haha.
I hope your right.
I'm pretty sure this thread has become useless and should be closed. If Mr. Wilder's and MRG wish to continue there battle elsewhere that's fine. Why let people bash MRG because they have different identities. MRG has posted their findings and listed them, you have the ability to test yourself and prove them wrong. Let's compare the people working for VB, you don't think they use protection? Probably what does best on their tests. Hard for me to fault them if they use products that do well in their tests. Now if somebody can prove that MRG is getting paid by somebody to post these results and are not true that's a different story. Until then i will consider this test legit and also consider it just another test. Point being Mr Wilders should not have called out the validatity of the test because it is what it is, if can prove the tests are wrong thats's 1 thing but if he can't prove the test's are inaccurate never should of posted. Also i don't believe MRG employees should be posting under different names and threating lawsuit or whatever. If your confident in your results, who really cares. There are people out there that enjoy your results. Point being thread has become useless for people that come here to learn. I could really care less about either of your ~snipped~.
Well if there is proof that a person working for Comodo (I am not saying that there is) has uploaded MRG's samples to Comodo, then I would say that you don't need to prove the tests themselves were wrong because it calls into serious question as to the vendors being tested as tainted, and therefore the whole test as illegitimate.
Wilders members associated with MRG changing identiities (nicknames) doesn't exactly give a reader (myself) much confidence in MRG's operation either.
As to the thread should be closed, doesn't matter to me, but I thought it was an interesting read.
I would believe Pauls's word on it
The big conclusion I drew from that test is that Prevx and a-squared (antivirus/behaviour-blocker) managed to beat 2 classical HIPS! Next thing you'll be telling me that Prevx and a-squared beat a sandboxed Linux VM at preventing infection by Windows malware haha.
Separate names with a comma.