prevx home page claims other AV's missed malware

According to Prevx's homepage, avira missed 49 rootkits yesterday on computers cleaned / detected by prevx.

Are these numbers pure marketing or is this true. Some clarification would be nice.

Hawk

 

I'll let pleonasm and others comment but I just wanted to clarify: surely the claim is the same one or few rootkit(s) on 49 different machines rather than 49 different rootkits?

I haven't looked on the page myself, I'm just trying to clarify for the sake of info content of this thread.

 

Here is the link from prevx's homepage.

http://www.prevx.com/avgraph/19_9/Avira-Rootkit.html

It appears to be more than one rootkit.

Hawk

 

Thanks for the link. DANG, the table at bottom of that page shows close to 49 different rootkit names - whether variable names for same rootkit, I wouldn't have a clue, but surely this represents many different rootkits.

I will look forward to some informed response on this.

 

yes its true. Prevx has broken the mold and decided to step out of the box and call other vendors to the carpet with their claims. OMG the sky is falling. I applaud Prevx for not being fearful, to tell it like it is. And if it holds true for Prevx, then others will find it out.

We spend every 3 months running IBK and his findings through the grinder. And in the end, it is the same crappy thread with everyone feeling they are right. I say, instead of beating on Insbruck, let the damn vendors fight it out amongst themselves as to who is cream, and who is crap.

 

Why dont other vendors do this?

Because they don't have to..... it's marketing whichever way you look at it.



AV X can come up with a BS graph just like that and say "hey buddy- look what WE find that prevx doesn't- Time to jump ship!!".....its pure and simple- we all know no AV can detect every single variant and prevx are exploiting that fact to the maximum without drawing attention to their own flaws, of which there more than a few.


Their data collection for the graphs is BS too- too many variables which are unaccounted for and they use WSC for detecting the other av installed, very accurate method considering WSC track record for correctly reporting the status of an installed av.

 

Take your time to read this whole thread and you'll find your answer

 

It might be marketing but I tend to think it is not BS, simply because Prevx provides so much info on the infected files they claim other AVs missed... pretty easy to verify or contest, in my opinion. I'd say Prevx is putting it all out there real transparent-like, and if Avira or avast! or Symantec disagrees, then have at it. In other words, it looks to me like Prevx can substantiate their claims. That's not BS.

 

As far as I'm aware, it's completely true. But you need to keep in mind

1. Results depend on the popularity of software, so you can't compare the results against each other, only against prevx.
2. Prevx doesn't check for outdated AVs

 

The only thing they can substantiate is that they caught a variant that the other vendors have ether came in contact with or don't feel its a threat. This kind of marketing will just bite them in the ass if they do get the attention of the big boys. Which will do nothing but run circles around this av.

things you don't do... Gloat and mess with company's with bigger budgets then you.


Also keep in mind. Those graphs may not show FALSE POSITIVES that prevx is detecting. Only that it detected it why having X and Y on the computer. For all we know they could just be FP's

 

Hi elapsed
I don't quite understand what you mean by, "Results depend on the popularity of the software"?
As for your #2, okay, it's important to keep in mind, as you say (and I assume it's true), but really, how could Prevx possibly make that check?

 

Mostly it is marketing, and as such there is some truth in it, it couldn't be totally bogus BS. This approach tends to work better than "Hey come use our product even though there are better programs out there, you should use ours". I doubt that approach would work very well.

 

That's saying something right there, if you ask me.

The "big boys" (hello Symantec) have proven over the years that they have trouble keeping their own business on a straight course. They are in no position, nor are they competitively capable, of running circles around a company like Prevx.

I don't know about that, lots of companies with big budgets have imploded lately. It's the lean and mean companies that are taking share, not the fat pigs.

I don't know about if they are fp's. A Prevx rep would have to address that for us. I appreciate your opinions... but I don't agree with many of them!

 

Very interesting read.

 

I assumed at least some were FP's as well. Thenew (1.5 days) Prevx install on my machine has had a couple of FP's already. I'm not complaining about the FP's at all, just wondering if they'll end up in today's scorecard of malware that Avira didn't catch.

Of course all this matters very little - just about every product's marketing involves at least a little hyperbole.

 

No doubt about it, Prevx is one of the better apps at detecting malware. See my 5 apps thread.

I just wish the app was recoded in order that we could maximise the windows to full, or at least, near full screen. Anybody else agree that they are too small ?

 

This review may help to show how good that Prevx is- an advanced technology that, well, blows other companies out of the water. Not to mention the great support they offer but that's another topic.

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2347577,00.asp

 

The option to enlarge the screen would be nice. You have to click around the display to find things you are looking for...

 

IMO, they (PREVX) are desperate. This is the kind of marketing that is to say the least unethical, and will have a boomerang effect in the long run. They can show any figures, prove whatever they like, if it is not coming from an independent party it remains BS.

That is not to say that Avira or any other companies are better or worse than PREVX. There are too many parameters with users at large, to claim what they found.

I've had Avira for a year now and had no AV for about a year before installing Avira, which remains my unique antimalware application with the firewall.
I scanned with PREVX 3.0 and found nothing, it lasted 2 minutes and 31 seconds.

 

Marketing with no proof to back it up,period.

Like anything in life,you better have the proof to back it up.Until then,it's just talkin in the wind.

 

Looks like its not unique malware for each listed sample, alot of malware use generated file names and you see similar name schemes here. Also some of the detections looks like false positives.

But the worst mistake of the chart is that is basing on the popularity of the scanner. If a product is very popular and has many installations like AVG or Avast, it will do worse in this chart. They should add the information "we checked xxx machines with product aaa and yyy of those were infected". Then you can see the actual percentage of systems that got infected.

 

This made me blow my coffee all over my monitor from laughing so hard.

PC mag ya there is a review that holds water lets try a real review like maybe Av-Comparatives or AV-Test or hell Ill even take a VB100 over PC Mag review / Thoughts on anything anytime.

I don't know whats harder to believe. That you thought I was implying Symantec, or that you really think that other av's don't / are not already running circles around this joke of a AV.

 

IMHO Prevx is a great product and they have great support, but their marketing is a bit dubious.

 

I agree with Fajo. AV-Comparatives have done cloud-tests for McAfee Artemis. And are capable of doing a test of PrevX, if they step up.

Until they get certification/comparison test from a well known n reputed third party. Their claims of superiority are propaganda material, at best.

 

Hello all,
You can read another discussion about this which has already been extensively hashed out (over hundreds of posts ) on: https://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?t=225190&page=160 (starting with lodore's post #3990)


However, to prevent going full circle again:

> Our vendor charts show threats which the other vendors miss. That is all they are meant to do and that is all that they do. There is no need to interpret them further and we won't interpret them further behind the scenes because that obscures the meaning.

> We detect threats that other vendors miss

> We are logically included in the statement "Every day, popular security products are missing thousands of infections"

> Prevx scans for active infections, not for infections in archives or dormant in subfolders on the disk so logically if we detect an infection and another AV is active on the system, it allowed that threat through

> Out of 20,000+ unique detections per day, far less than 1% are false positives so the statistics are not terribly skewed because of them

> Older/outdated antivirus software is not a problem for AV companies and makes no difference on the charts, being that they must logically try as hard as possible to keep backward compatibility with new technology to protect their users better to reduce complaints and fuel renewals

> Internet security suites have functions which can block a fraction more samples, but in the end they ARE still letting thousands of threats through, just as their anti-malware counterparts are

> On-demand, massive collection AV testing is flawed by concept and most new products today cannot be adequately assessed in this manner (and obviously AVs aren't catching 99% of threats in the true wild)