Prevx fails Infected System Rescue Test

Prevx not looking too sharp in either test...
http://malwareresearchgroup.com/?page_id=2

Note: I know that some people consider MRG to be untrustworthy. That said, I'd like Prevx Joe's input on the test, if he wouldn't mind.

 

In my own tests from about 2 weeks ago show a completely different picture. So I guess Ill just base my judgment off my own results.

 

kind of goes against the grain of what they say in their other tests, here and here Lol

 

The best thing you ever said!

TH

 

MRG = FUD

Paul Wilders Exposed there Hypocrisy which they cannot deny! So I hope Joe makes his reply here fast and then closes this thread! https://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?t=251113

TH

 

Both of your links are to the same test.
And that test is for 60 Rogue Software samples.
The test I linked is for 1000 samples of malware, the samples up to one month old , only Trojans, Backdoors, Worms, Rogues, Spyware and Viruses were used.
I think the previous problem involved Comodo, and Comodo is not tested in this group.

 

Calm down, TH. You may not like the test results, and you may not like the people doing the testing, but from what I see, they named the malware that Prevx missed. Joe can tell us whether that's correct or not. Let's allow a few facts to surface before screaming for the thread to be closed.

 

Page don't get me wrong!

I don't get upset I just don't like cheats and Untrusted malware testing = MRG! Also I said after Joe replies I hope he closes this thread as he has closed other one's on the same subject!

TH

 

I'm just guessing here but the on-demand portion states "9. The test is conducted by performing a right click scan of the folder containing the samples and allowing the application to delete / quarantine any samples detected."


So I assume that the answer to the on-demand portion will be like this https://www.wilderssecurity.com/showpost.php?p=1570521&postcount=10 .

 

Also this post says it all! Sorry Page! https://www.wilderssecurity.com/showpost.php?p=1576350&postcount=25

TH

 

I agree, and I thought that too when I read it. Honestly, I wish Prevx was better about right-click and on-demand scanning, but it isn't, so I use the real-time protection. And that is what the second test involves... real-time protection, detection and removal capabilities of the programs tested.

I get your point. I got it the first time. Perhaps if you would stop campaigning for the thread to be closed, and allow Prevx Joe to respond, the interests of all might be better served.

 

nope....its all about detection and removal not realtime as hitman has no realtime protection and its here where prevx is the strongest-realtime protection,thats why the test is iffy...

 

Read the methodology used in the Infected System Rescue Test, specifically Step #11... "Real Time protection and other default methods of detection/prevention used by the applications are turned on."

 

Understood and awaiting Joe's Reply! But again they are unreliable and dishonest. In any tests they do why would you believe anything said by them? It's just like me telling you that ACDG are the best and BFHI are not!

TH

 

page your concern is

right........then please look at the right test

quote:

check point 5,8 and 11

 

I am looking at the right test, and I have checked all the points. Enough so that I knew they were real-time when you said they weren't. I see exactly how they tested, and they tested all products the same way... essentially how they perform in real-time after a system is infected. They are quite clear about what they did.

 

now i might be a bit groggy today....but plzzz explain if you diasble real time protection of prevx.....then execute the malware...then re-enable realtime protection and scan to test whether it detects or not.....how can that test the real time protection prevx has on execution scanning so when you disable prevx protection to execute the malware how can you say it failed in the first place ?

 

Perhaps the best explanation is that the test is designed to see how Prevx acts when it is installed on an infected system. I wholeheartedly agree that Prevx's strength is catching malware on execution (at least I have assumed that is its strength!). Why is that asking so much of an application? MBAM has gained a lot of notoriety for being just such a tool. If Joe comes here and says Prevx isn't supposed to detect infections that are already in place, well, let's hear that. The test says Prevx isn't too hot in that category.

PS- Over and out. I'm sleepy.

 

There are two types of tests - one over a random folder and started with a right click scan, and one on a real PC, with live infections.

Prevx honestly does not care about on-demand tests over a bulk of files, and in virtually all cases its detection rates will be significantly lower than in a real test on an actual system. We look to protect users against real infections coming from a real system - for example, a program entering the system from a possible exploit within web browser is handled significantly differently from a program just double clicked on the PC. Prevx works heavily on context which is why these tests do not provide adequate means of assessing what a real user would see or be protected from.

Additionally, Prevx guarantees its malware cleanup - therefore we must have stellar detection or we would have been out of business years ago

However, within the next couple weeks I suspect that we will be receiving some test results which will vastly overshadow this test

 

Question for you, Joe... is Prevx effective when installed on a computer that is already infected, i.e. when it is not active on the system when the malware first installs? Thank you.

 

Yes - this is the state that we get most of our customers in and the point at which we guarantee cleanup

 

Joe, I recall you stating that in your own comparison tests, that Prevx will gladly send along any samples missed by other company's products if so requested. (I believe that I have paraphrased you correctly.) So are you saying that you have requested the missed samples from MRG, and they will not comply?

 

the numbers talks for them self ...

 

Hello all,
MRG has been performing tests of Prevx and these tests have been ethical, rigorous, and fair. They will be supplying the relevant samples and if they are still missed now, we will be adding detection as soon as possible. In the meantime, I'm going to close this thread to prevent any further speculative discussion.