prevx home page claims other AV's missed malware

Discussion in 'other anti-virus software' started by hawkeen, Jun 1, 2009.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. hawkeen

    hawkeen Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2006
    Posts:
    78
    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
     
  2. crofttk

    crofttk Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 15, 2004
    Posts:
    1,976
    Location:
    Eastern PA, USA
    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.
     
  3. hawkeen

    hawkeen Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2006
    Posts:
    78
  4. crofttk

    crofttk Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 15, 2004
    Posts:
    1,976
    Location:
    Eastern PA, USA
    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.
     
  5. trjam

    trjam Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2006
    Posts:
    9,057
    Location:
    North Carolina
    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.
     
  6. Baz_kasp

    Baz_kasp Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 1, 2008
    Posts:
    593
    Location:
    London
    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.
     
  7. Macstorm

    Macstorm Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2005
    Posts:
    2,531
    Location:
    Sneffels volcano
    Take your time to read this whole thread and you'll find your answer ;)
     
  8. Page42

    Page42 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2007
    Posts:
    5,828
    Location:
    Last Breath Farm
    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. :thumb:
     
  9. funkydude

    funkydude Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2004
    Posts:
    6,852
    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
     
  10. Fajo

    Fajo Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2008
    Posts:
    1,812
    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. :D


    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
     
  11. Page42

    Page42 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2007
    Posts:
    5,828
    Location:
    Last Breath Farm
    Hi funkydude
    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? :)
     
  12. flyrfan111

    flyrfan111 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2004
    Posts:
    1,224
    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.
     
  13. Page42

    Page42 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2007
    Posts:
    5,828
    Location:
    Last Breath Farm
    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! ;)
     
  14. overangry

    overangry Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2009
    Posts:
    309
    Very interesting read.
     
  15. optigrab

    optigrab Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2002
    Posts:
    624
    Location:
    Brooklyn/NYC USA
    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.
     
  16. StevieO

    StevieO Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2006
    Posts:
    1,067
    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 ?
     
  17. benton4

    benton4 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2004
    Posts:
    158
    Location:
    Oregon
    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
     
  18. Mongol

    Mongol Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2004
    Posts:
    1,581
    Location:
    Houston, TX
    The option to enlarge the screen would be nice. You have to click around the display to find things you are looking for...:eek: :D
     
  19. Osaban

    Osaban Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2005
    Posts:
    4,214
    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.
     

    Attached Files:

    Last edited: Jun 2, 2009
  20. Boost

    Boost Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2007
    Posts:
    1,293
    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.
     
  21. Stefan Kurtzhals

    Stefan Kurtzhals AV Expert

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2003
    Posts:
    701
    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.
     
  22. Fajo

    Fajo Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2008
    Posts:
    1,812
    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. :cautious:

    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. :argh:
     
  23. Someone

    Someone Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2008
    Posts:
    1,106
    IMHO Prevx is a great product and they have great support, but their marketing is a bit dubious.
     
  24. vijayind

    vijayind Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2008
    Posts:
    1,413
    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.
     
  25. PrevxHelp

    PrevxHelp Former Prevx Moderator

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2008
    Posts:
    8,242
    Location:
    USA/UK
    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)
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.