PrevX test by MRG

Discussion in 'Prevx Releases' started by ludo021288, Nov 5, 2009.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. ludo021288

    ludo021288 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2008
    Posts:
    22
  2. firzen771

    firzen771 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2007
    Posts:
    4,815
    Location:
    Canada
    ive never put much faith in MRG so i wuldnt take this test to seriously IMO.

    EDIT: if u read on it says they only ran on-demand tests and did not execute the malware, well now that completely explains why prevx scored so low.
     
  3. the Tester

    the Tester Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2002
    Posts:
    2,854
    Location:
    The Gateway to the Blue Hills,WI.
  4. funkydude

    funkydude Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2004
    Posts:
    6,852
    Not many people care for MRG test results.
     
  5. Triple Helix

    Triple Helix Webroot Product Advisor

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2004
    Posts:
    12,011
    Location:
    Ontario, Canada
    Was it these guys that got caught with many user names on the Forums and were outed to be dishonest by the Forum Admins? o_O

    TH
     
  6. funkydude

    funkydude Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2004
    Posts:
    6,852
    Yes. :rolleyes:
     
  7. Triple Helix

    Triple Helix Webroot Product Advisor

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2004
    Posts:
    12,011
    Location:
    Ontario, Canada
    Thought so! Well the test mean nothing then! :thumbd:

    TH
     
  8. papillonn

    papillonn Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2005
    Posts:
    117
    Location:
    TR
    Let me know are there any reliable cloud tests?
     
  9. Triple Helix

    Triple Helix Webroot Product Advisor

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2004
    Posts:
    12,011
    Location:
    Ontario, Canada
    I guess we will be still waiting then!

    TH
     
  10. PrevxHelp

    PrevxHelp Former Prevx Moderator

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2008
    Posts:
    8,242
    Location:
    USA/UK
    We haven't gotten any details regarding the test samples so we honestly have no idea if they actually are malicious.

    However, as firzen771 pointed out, Prevx's right-click scanner provides only a very small fraction of the detection/protection which Prevx fully provides. Testers trying to test Prevx on-demand are incorrect in their methodology and clearly don't understand how Prevx works :doubt:
     
  11. papillonn

    papillonn Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2005
    Posts:
    117
    Location:
    TR
    It is a shame for a testing group obviously.
     
  12. Defenestration

    Defenestration Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2004
    Posts:
    1,086
  13. Scoobs72

    Scoobs72 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2007
    Posts:
    1,108
    Location:
    Sofa (left side)
  14. Triple Helix

    Triple Helix Webroot Product Advisor

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2004
    Posts:
    12,011
    Location:
    Ontario, Canada
    As I said dishonest and now untrustworthy these guys are full of BS :mad: Foot in mouth syndrome!

    TH
     
  15. Triple Helix

    Triple Helix Webroot Product Advisor

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2004
    Posts:
    12,011
    Location:
    Ontario, Canada
  16. trjam

    trjam Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2006
    Posts:
    9,057
    Location:
    North Carolina
    and just what if, they are right. Prevx had intended from day one to get reviewed by PCMag. It took a few months but in the end they got what they wanted. Right or wrong? I dont know but is it any differnet then Symantec and their paid results. I really dont trust any testing vendors anymore, period. The best tests are the ones that members here report based on fact, not dollars.
     
  17. Defenestration

    Defenestration Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2004
    Posts:
    1,086
    As they mention at the beginning though, they only tested on-demand, whereas Prevx's strength lies in it's ability to detect executed/running malware in real-time, which I guess is why Prevx scores so low.
     
  18. the Tester

    the Tester Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2002
    Posts:
    2,854
    Location:
    The Gateway to the Blue Hills,WI.

    I agree 100%.
    Paid results are nothing more than advertisements regardless of who the vendor is.
     
  19. demoneye

    demoneye Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2007
    Posts:
    1,356
    Location:
    ISRHell
    hi

    if MRG, the testing company "doesnt know how prevx operate, and there for tests are incorrect"("official prevx reply Testers trying to test Prevx on-demand are incorrect in their methodology and clearly don't understand how Prevx works") if so , how can a common user know how to use prevx full power or even in the correct way?:D
     
  20. JRViejo

    JRViejo Global Moderator

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2008
    Posts:
    20,921
    Location:
    U.S.A.
    Removed two Off-Topic posts. Lets keep the discussion focused on PrevX and please stay on topic. Thanks!

    JR
     
  21. Vikorr

    Vikorr Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 1, 2005
    Posts:
    662
    Doesn't Prevx do behavioural analysis? If there is very new malware installed and all you do is a system scan (whether full or part), and not have the malware run (ie give Prevx no behaviour to analyse), then it's no surprise that Prevx only picks up 29%.

    MRG say they don't give the products a chance to do behavioural analysis, and this to me seems to be what Prevx says when they say 'you guys don't understand how Prevx works'. MRG seems to have missed this point entirely.

    Of course, there are also settings on Prevx that allow for the detection of new files, not seen by Prevx, and for the test, I would doubt that MRG had them enabled (as of course, by default they aren't set so sensitive).

    Then there is the speed at which detections are added.

    Yeah, it's hard to judge from their test, but from my admittedly limited knowledge of Prevx (which seems to be more than MRG) it does seem they employed a flawed test.
     
  22. ako

    ako Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2006
    Posts:
    627
    The test seems OK. It was an on-demand test. Period. (How do you perform an on-demand scan with Hitman pro, by the way? It has been spesifically built to find living malware.)

    The statistics is of course rather small (and maybe somehow biased), but the two first tests are rather consistent (MSE being only anomaly):

    1) Bluepoint Security = 61.6%
    2) Hitman Pro = 57.0%
    3) A-Squared = 52.2%
    4) AntiVir = 51.6%
    5) Microsoft Security Essentials 45.4%
    6) NOD32 = 33.8%
    7) Prevx = 21.0%
    [noparse]:cool: Panda Cloud = 13.0%*[/noparse]
    9) Immunet Protect = 5.2%*

    1) Hitman Pro = 66%
    2) Bluepoint Security = 60%
    3) Prevx = 29%
    4) Panda Cloud = 15%*
    5) Immunet Protect = 7%*

    Microsoft Security Essentials 24%.
     
    Last edited: Nov 10, 2009
  23. ako

    ako Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2006
    Posts:
    627
  24. Triple Helix

    Triple Helix Webroot Product Advisor

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2004
    Posts:
    12,011
    Location:
    Ontario, Canada
  25. PrevxHelp

    PrevxHelp Former Prevx Moderator

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2008
    Posts:
    8,242
    Location:
    USA/UK
    In the interest of not fueling further discussions on topics about a group which have been historically closed by other moderators on the forum, I'm going to continue and close this thread as well.

    We recommend continuing discussions over on the Malware Research Group's own forums.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.