MRG Rogue Software Test

hello...you know that its not classical HIPS or sandboxed Linux VM that get beaten mostly its the user who either confiures them wrong or answers yes when it should be block....

 

Yes I know the less educated are less protected.

My comments were made in the context of this test mate:
COMODO Internet Security (All Features Enabled)
Online Armor ++ (All Features Enabled)

Are you implying that the reason Defense+ and OA's HIPS failed to block some of these rogue software was because MRG used these products wrongly?

 

well i don't know about MRG but i 'll quote you from a thread you'll remember..

 

I'm sure they tested it in VM though right? As far as I know, VMs are very accurate. The one issue I had was with regards to jmonge or Franklin's test on a recent Sandboxie Beta, where it passed some POCs that I failed on my real system. I initially thought jmonge/Franklin's test passed because they used a VM, but in fact, my Sandboxie failed because of a conflict between Defense+ and Avira.

So as far as I know, VMs are 100% accurate at testing security products.

 

are there any known connections between MRG and ssupdater? (beside that both are using e.g. Goaddy to hide their identities and that MRG was created after ssupdater got some "critics"?)

 

MRG=ssupdater...its their malware test front now there will be a new one...right puss...sveta...chris...ummm asctec

 

Yes Grand Commander of SSupdater is Sveta and Littlebits is his right hand partner in crime(Astech & Retadpuss)

Now which one was Max Zorin...safe money says Retadpuss because of his one man hate campaign against MBAM.

No doubt like SSupdater is dying a terminal death so will MRG for the exact same reason

I sincerly hope,although doubt they will learn their lesson after investing man hours in setting up MRG only for it to be exposed as far from independent or trustworthy.

If they should rebrand and set up shop once again it wont be too difficult to spot them as you only have to look at the test results data and testing models used.

 

BTW, I didn't mean to call Retadpuss ... Retardpuss, was a typo soz

 

I am still ~Removed~ about Puss. I trusted him.

But heres the thing. What is gained by doing this stuff, I mean from the profit side. You just dont go through creating all this with no monetary gain. Do the vendors have to pay to be tested? Or are the winners the ones that pay to link or reference this test on their website. I really hope not, but wont go there for now.

But what is to be gained by doing this. I would really like to know. Thank you

 

After reading all replys here, several times, I'm a bit ~removed~ myself.
Getting a little older, I should have been able to see this.
Thanks Paul and others for exposing MRG for what they are, Fraud's.
If any mod's would like to close this thread, feel free to do so, please.
Unless someone knows anything else that would benifit members here on this subject.

 

http://malwareresearchgroup.com/downloads/

Linked to online store for purchase of softwares(Buy it now!), of course they would'nt be receiving commisions on traffic + sales now would they

But then it dose beg the question why would an independent testing site have a download page for selected tested softwares and not links to all the tested software websites.

Of course it could be countered that on their download page there is some softwares listed that are not main stream and they do not perform as well if tested.

This is easily explained by looking at suspect review sites for softwares and how they operate+generate their income, throw in plenty of mediocre software to promote sales of your principal softwares.

Of course this is all unethical and a slur against genuine security resources unfortunetly it is big business for thoes 2 bottom feeders and their like minded ilk as this pattern is all too commonly repeated around the web.

HTH

 

Advertising may be described as the science of arresting the human intelligence long enough to get money from it.

Stephen Leacock

 

After just recieving a PM from "Retadpuss" or whoever he is calling himself this week only confirms Paul's post #21, that he is indeed connected with MRG.
I would post the PM but it is against the TOS of the forum. (I believe this to be so)
I have no reason to dought anything else said about MRG,Puss or some of the others menchened in this thread.
Bottom line, watch who you trust, cause it may not be who you think it is.

 

I can't speak for all of the vendors tested but we did not pay anything.

 

oh, I know you couldnt. I heard after they pay you and Marcos, PWD only gets a IOU each Friday.

 

I notice that whenever Panda, Prevx or other company other than KAV, Symantec or Avira won some testing its always suspicius for some people...

IBK and InspectorC.. are good friends at the time he was working for Eset and during that time Eset did very good in IBK tests so now we have to think that its because IBK were sending samples to Eset before starting tests or Eset paid him?

Its stupid.

 

actually, the tests dont shock me. I expected Prevx to do well because they have from PC Mag to Matt. It is everything else brought out afterwards that blows my mind.

 

No, I mean IC is no longer there and Eset still does well, so that is more the products ability. Anyway, IBK has to much to lose.

 

I can't speak for COMODO, but what strikes me as odd is that if the HIPS in Online Armor++ failed to block Reg Genie, it should have been picked up by a-squared/ikarus which they use. Reg Genie was detected by the a-squared product so why not in Online Armor++ which uses the a-squared engine?

 

Well this thread (the 1st 25 posts in particular) has certainly been enlightening. From now on when I am reading posts or engaged in them and another member is vigorously opposed or supporting a particular organization (mainly 3rd party testing sites), I will probably be a lot more suspicious of their true intentions.

 

Hi mate, personally, what strikes me as even more odd is that Reg Genie bypassed Online Armor's HIPS.

 

Because the products use different approaches for file validation. Online Armor ++ has the OASIS database to validate files, a-squared uses the Emsi Software community feature and false alert filters that Ikarus does not use.

The scan engine is just the core of the products, but there are much more layers built on top of that. Resulting in different detection abilities.


Apart from this, I don't really see a good reason for that dirt match initiated by Paul Wilders.

While I'm unable to say who is right or wrong, all parties should put the facts on the table and discuss without flaming or threating lawsuit.

What happens here reminds me more on a witch-hunt than a fair process. It's not the first time for this forum when things like that happened.

@Paul: I think you're aware that you hold a major power for public mind manipulation in your hands. Use it very carefully before destroying projects that are backed up by many hours of work.

As for MRG, yes, they send samples to AV vendors - after - the tests are done. That's far more than any other of the so called 'trusted' testing agencies currently does to help AV vendors to improve their products.

I would MRG highly recommend to make their identities public and become member of AMTSO to get back their reputation as an independent testing agency.

At last, MRG is one of the very little group of testers who don't charge money for their tests. That little fact makes me belive in that project as I see it as the only way to do really independent and fair testing without excluding AV vendors who can't and wouldn't afford the very expensive testing fees.

 

Dirt match ?

When people from an "independent Test organisation" try to manipulate opinion in this forum using different nick names then this is doubtful behavior in the least. When they do this in this forum they do this elsewhere. People with this kind of practices are not to be trusted.

I understand your sensitivity regarding MRG when I look at the EMSI website

 

Using different logons is one thing, not right of course and against wilders TOS, but can be forgiven if you keep in mind, that there have been posted very offensive accusations before. The fact that 90% of the people here simply believe what Paul said, does not make the accusations true by nature. The only true fact here is, that we still didn't get any proofs.

What I'm trying to say is: Be careful and don't adjudge people just by said words that can't be validated. Whoever they really are.

While I still belive in the good sides of people, I also can't provide a proof of MRG's innocence.

What if Paul was fed with wrong information by an AV vendor who thought he was not treated right with MRG's testing methodology? What if they just mixed usernames of similar sounding users but completely different people? Anyone questioned that before?

In my personal opinion this is not ok that way. "MRG doesn't deserve to live, let's kill 'em!". If there have been failures, let's sort them out to make a better organization of MRG. I know one thing for sure: The people behind MRG are malware enthusiasts and are willing to spend a lot of their spare time in testing software. They do that for free, without charging thousands of dollars for tests. For me as software CEO, that fact is most important.

Yes we have won several MRG tests recently, but what? Should I be ashamed to win a test now?

Or is the next accusation that Emsisoft has paid MRG to win and I'm the next one burning on the fire stake? Yeah..

 

+1 and is very disappointing but not surpising that their principlal promoted software then see no problem with this manipulative and dishonest behaviour.

You even level critism at Paul Wilders for revealing it