Discussion in 'other anti-malware software' started by Dark Star 72, Jun 23, 2010.
That is your opinion so explain it, what it is that you don't understand here?
Prove that your testing file is not deliberately altered nvidia proprietary software... and I already explained
Never mind NVIDIA , but answer this please :
Why do you make videos and then delete them , why do you delete comments on them ?
I didn't see Comodo is deleting ANY of your posts on Comodo forums.
And most importantly .. why do you focus on making Comodo bad, even after you said that you will no longer take Comodo in your tests, shortly after that there was barrage of bashing Comodo as hard as you can.
Plus, videos can be faked and yours are done with very poor quality.
You might say that they are not faked of course, but why don't you just make special tool just for Comodo which will bypass it and then make it available for everyone to test it. This whole saga would be all over then.
What are you afraid of ?
Can't say I didn't see this coming. I don't have anything against COMODO, I only have a problem with their level of professionalism. This thread went from the original topic to lies, deleted posts, he said-she said, not to mention accusation upon accusation. To any dear Moderators out there, I'm sure we all remember how to last COMODO thread ended.
If anyone has a question about MRG's testing methods and/or software used during the test, why not ask them on their website? Otherwise I don't see how it does a lick of good for this community to discuss old-beef even more.
Besides all the argueing and bickering going back and forth, do you guys plan to publish the names of clients/vendors that are willing to use/pay for your test VM's?
The next step for MRG (imao) is acknowledgement/verification by the security software industry as to the usefullness and validity of your testing method(s).
Until this point, MRG claims; 'You can trust us'.
Trust is nice but verification is better.
Are there any companies that have contacted you guys already, showing interest and trust?
Hmm guess from your Avatar we know who you favour
Now check their awards and comparison results out and see that MRG are listed by them>>>
Do you think Emsisoft would stoop to listing an untrustworthy source ?
We have a number of vendors signed up, under contract, however, because of confidentiality clauses we can not disclose the names of our clients.
I can tell you that two vendors have provided testimonials concerning us and our testing:
I can also disclose that Sunbelt contacted us some months ago and we now have an informal relationship with them at VP level and we have recently started talking to McAfee at Director level.
If you want to find out who else we provide services for, look about, you may notice the occasional vendor, not mentioned here thank or give credit to MRG.
I have full confidence in MRG. Perhaps even more than in AV-C (which test methods are old like my grandma).
Obviously, the original objective of this test needs re-affirming.
And that is, which programs can not only intelligently detect/intercept browser attack based malware but intelligently report and even block it to help the "average user" remain secure. Were not talking about wilders members with several years experience using some type of HIPS program but "average computer users" who are not so experienced!
C'mon, any simple anti-executable could intercept the simulator in this test and give the general "blah blah warning". This wouldn't help the inexperienced make a decision.
The truth of the matter is some programs "can do this and do this" and the ones that "can't", failed for this reason. Plain and simple.
What has hindered this thread and happens all too often on this forum is the "fanboy mentality" = people getting all bent out of shape over "a piece of code"
It borders on the ridiculous!
Regarding the MRG test file
I spent some time trying to locate an Nvidia utility on the web with that name and file size. I could not find one
I "presume" MRG had to name it something, so picked an inconspicuous sounding one to "maybe" fool AV's etc ?
We give the simulator a different file name every time the test is conducted - the name is just random each time. We also change the IP address of the system on every test as well. It's all detailed in the methodology section in the report.
Thanks for the response, Sveta.
One thing I am sure of is that some would not be happy if you hung 'em with a new rope.
There are so many experts that no test is going to be meaningful to them. On the other had they do not seem to do testing themselves.
They have another video with nvidia popup also but it is very blurry, I think you cannot find file because it is part of larger package (and randomly named by MRG of course), nvidia driver package perhaps, we will know for sure when MRG provide proof
You make a valid point there .
What's quite sufficient notification to a seasoned,technical user is not the same as that required for a novice user.They're accustomed to their AV flashing up a big red warning upon encountering malware and rightly or wrongly they look for similar in a HIPS.
The argument has been made that if they don't understand what's going on don't use advanced software,but the simple fact is that some products offer a better warning than others which indicates that it's possible to offer protection that's both effective and understandable for all.
Most inexperienced users won't know to be looking for tests such as these because a lot of inexperienced users just think their Anti-Virus will be enough to protect them or think that all Anti-Viruses are the same.
What is the point of making tests for inexperienced users when 95% of the people viewing the tests are more experienced than not?
It makes no sense to me
Many times experienced users are the ones choosing/installing the security applications for inexperienced users, which is the reason why I like tests which are done for inexperienced users. For example I'm the one choosing security applications for my parents and brothers.
I respect MRG's work here and see nothing wrong with it.
About this Comodo thing, while I think that CFW is a very good program, Comodo fans have always seemed to have a hard time accepting that Comodo has failed in a test and IMO they should just deal with it or help Comodo to improve CIS. I think justenough said it quite well in his post (# 38.
Thing is that only MRG claims that Comodo fails on some test that no-one can verify.
Another thing is that MRG runs dirty campaign based on that claim.
Believe it or not, it's not hard at all to make video in which ANY security app will fail.
It all comes down to trusting that video or not.
One reason I have nothing to do with any Comodo products is the "circle the wagons" attitude of its coterie.
I appreciate MRG's tests & often find them interesting. Data. Numbers. Opinions. Ideas. Not the be-all & end-all of life as we know it.
good testing Sveta and as for comodo all i can say it is not perfect software
Oh Yeah! Tell me more about it. Do you have experience on how to do that? Do you know anyone or any institution that does that? Please name names and I cannot wait to read your allegations.
I think that goes for all software not just Comodo. Maybe MRG testing isn't perfect either. If you leave your door unlocked when you go out do you want someone who notices this to post a video on youtube that your door is not locked or do you prefer to be informed privately? Either way the door needs to be locked but there is a proper way to deal with the situation.
Sure, name your security app and I'll do it.
But be aware, if you ask me how I did it or anything regarding any details about it, be aware that I'll not tell you anything. However, some third-party can verify my tool, ok ?
and please do your job properly and do not leave any nvidia clues behind because somebody will ask questions...