[Thread split]MRG Flash Tests 2012

I know there were some tests where he listed the type of block, maybe you could suggest this be done again.

Trust me, I understand what you are saying and it would be great to know every single detail but there are 3 factors that could cause more harm than good.

1. samples only blocked at the source
2. URL's that have since posting died
3. updates dramatically affecting a retest against the source URLs and samples

There is no such thing as a perfect test but I am glad that someone is FINALLY attempting to redefine what a "current sample" is.

 

ok, here I'm with you

So after all it remains the "trust me or not game", which in that case is harder because of the history.

 

27.07.2012 and 6 h later

 

MRG Effitas are going to include Comodo Internet Security in their upcoming projects: http://www.blog.mrg-effitas.com/mrg-effitas-flash-test-23-07-2012-12-hours-later/#comments.

 

Sign of the coming apocalypse.

 

No updates in the last few days.

 

August 3rd results - zerohour, 6 hours, 12 hours.

http://www.blog.mrg-effitas.com/

 

i like this testing approach very much..0 hr, 6 hr, 12 hr. It gives broader detail about how each vendor responds to newly born threats..

 

for me their test was not and is not acceptable.
another home-made test

are they bitdefender's enemy ?

just look the test 03.08.2012 ( 6 hour ITW )

it showed bitdefender like this : passed

i mean they colored it in red wow...

 

good observation. lets see what sveta says. i guess its a human error.

 

well , fast reaction ! they fixed it as soon as they could !

just try to review the result patiently for only 10sec after you are ready to put it on the net , for god sake !

 

Or, perhaps you should realize that honest human error does (and will continue to) occur and patiently await its correction once the matter has come to light.

A lot easier (and more responsible) than posting needless conspiracy theories without regard to the fallout which such speculation creates. Especially when its motivated by the fact that a given test result didn't turn out as you had hoped.

Just a thought.

 

http://www.mrg-effitas.com/current-tests/flash-test-results/
I'm surprised Ikarus isn't performing better.
Eset, time to step it up.

 

hey be careful of what you are saying young man. you know nothing about behind the curtains.. these tests have whole a lot of differences with the ones which AV-C and AV tests does.

 

Thanks for that, it's nice to be called young man when I'm old enough to be the father of most and the grandfather of at least some on these boards.

I take these test results as just one additional data point to be used in concert with info gleaned from other sources and tests made available.

What I don't do is cast aspersions without some solid evidence to back it up.
That's the point I am trying to make. It's easy to point a finger...harder to provide proof. Perhaps I'm just more sensitive to this than most after spending the majority of my adult life bringing criminals to justice and ensuring that I had the facts necessary to prove my case in court.

 

Blue

 

Yeah, I hear ya...nearly tripped over my soapbox and spilled my coffee after that one!

 

This test is a pretty crappy test. All it looks for is SOME alert to the user, doesn't matter if the alert is totally useless and leaves the user with no idea on how to make the decision.

Such products to not work well for your average user so the results of this test serve as no reference point of comparison between products.

 

In those cases, they are given a "Yellow pass" (it looks orange to me). A "Yellow pass" is different for HitmanPro, though: http://www.blog.mrg-effitas.com/mrg...07-2012-zero-hour/comment-page-1/#comment-130.

 

Seems like Emsisoft A2 engine really works properly detecting malware.

 

I can sympathize with the "young man" reference. We (you and I) must be in the "old geezer" stage!

 

MRG Flash Tests....some stats' attached;

1) 100% to HMP and MBAM after releasing their new versions;
2) 100% in all tests, including zero day, to DefenceWall , Kaspersky, Emsisoft, Blue Point

3) In terms of 0 / 6 / 12 hour "catch up"....Avast, Source Fire, and Trend Micro are quick to catch up....

4) Most of the 'others' get there [100%] by 12 hours...

5) with the stragglers....AVG , M$, usually not quite getting there [85 - 90%]


So..what does anyone make out of that load of sassafras?

-feandur

 

It should bring up a debate about 2 things.

1. What constitutes a viable sample when it comes to confirmed age of origin needs further looking into.

2. Malware morph rate vs. countermeasure rate vs. predictive technology needs further looking into.

 

I guess it shows that, generally speaking, most quality AV-scanners are just a step or two [6 - 12 hrs] behind the bad guys .........

[I'm reminded of KIng Grub's post....
".....80% of Carberp infected computers had antivirus software installed.."

http://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?t=329149

And so the need for 'zero day' [ or 'half day' ] protection is crucial even with good real time AV...

Which brings us, full circle, to Wilder's "Other anti-malware software" posts.........

http://www.wilderssecurity.com/forumdisplay.php?f=35



feandur.

 

Actually...in light of the MRG flash tests, and the AV-comparatives......

http://chart.av-comparatives.org/chart2.php

...I admit to liking the performance of Kaspersky more and more.

[and me a NIS2012 fan .]

seems a top notch AV.


- feandur