Why is PrevX not tested by AV-comparatives?

Unlike avc who use useless samples on-demand, with automatic tools to check your samples, I have great doubt also about how companys van get such high results in your tests when tested against large volumes?


Will the missed samples be used in the next one?

Because its commen knowledge that companys are adding these missed (untested) samples automatically from you! To boost the next results.

On here, your labelled an expert, but I see nothing in your testing methodolgy that would differ from you doing the tests in this manner, compared to an average joe performing them.

 

I was unaware of this - definitely good to know!

Quite honestly I'm not sure what the certification process involves regarding retesting but from the time that we applied for the certificate and received it, I doubt there would be much room for multiple tests

 

We have never lost a client besides the once-in-a-blue-moon issue of a user cleaning with another AV before they gave us a chance to clean their PC if our cleanup failed

We may end up looking to do a commissioned test like IBK has suggested but with WestCoastLabs' Platinum Certification and many, many satisfied clients and visible successes, I don't believe we will be doing it with Prevx 3.0 - Prevx 4.0, however, could very well be a good candidate for this

 

Like I said joe, I urge you to go the route of av-test.org and not avc for your entry into their dynamic test, i dont trust AVC at all at the moment!

 

have there not been enough tests of late to prove its ability. I mean at some point it isnt who or where it is tested, it is the fact it is finising at or near the top in all of them. To me that says it all.

 

For me, it doesn't need to enter any, but you have to think of what others may want to see,

Personally, ill take some fresh reviews from other respected websites other than pcmag over entering the dynamic test.

I prefer to read reviews, and then getting the certification than just seeing a percentage grade.

 

I agree

 

Very nice explanation, proven in field.

 

Joe, but always You and other people who likes PrevX said that PrevX is very good on the newest zero-days. But for example today i tested it on zero-days from MDL and other sites. And from 10 files PrevX founds only 4 infected files. And when I send malware to the report mail i dont have any reply.

 

To which comparative assessments are you referring?

 

Only 4 of the 10?

did you not execute the samples and document its progress?

 

I've got 10 samples of malware. I dont run every sample, only scans by right mouse button. And PrevX from ten samples detects only four. Better situation is when the software like that finds problem, infection faster, before running it. There is always high risk when user start malware and PrevX or other software detects it - after start in system.

If You want I can start this 10 files. But in lot of tests, this profesional and unprofessionall no always testers run every sample.

 

Right click scan is the lowest form of detection that prevx offers, even the scanner within prevx uses more technology to detect the files, and this goes even further when you execute and run the sample.

Think of it as a 3 tier detection system, and your way that detected only 4 was using just the first tier.

Hope that makes sense.

 

Okay. Today I will simply run those 10 files. And we see what PrevX detects.

But You know that better situation is when security software detects malware before running it in system.

 

It will be blocked before it runs, but the right click or ondemand scanners only perform a very, very small fraction of the full analysis of Prevx, even before execution

 

but i think it will be better to take new files.
prevx must detect yours now i think.

 

Parenthetically, this is a good rationale for why on-demand testing of anti-malware products may fail to fully represent the power of the product.

 

In that case a thorough scan option would be quite nice. Say I have a file that might be malware, then I just want to check it without executing it. There is always a chance PrevX doesn't know about it yet and then people will all go and shout how dumb users are

 

It has been said that Prevx's strength is in scanning files upon execution rather than using the right-click approach. That will work, but is only a small part of Prevx's capabilities.

 

People make very similar mistakes when testing prevx, as you have to know the software well to test it.

When I run my own tests for prevx, (which are non-profit of course ) I like to run every possible thing I can to check what's going on and if something has slipped through, I don't mind comprimising my own live-system if it helps uncover a flaw, or help in a certain particular nasty, as I have many backups for everything.

I use system monitors, registry snapshots and whatever else I can before executing the samples, its also a good way to see which files prevx replaces during removal. (which can be ALOT)

I don't call myself an expert, but I do know how prevx works and how to test it against samples.

 

You have right. When i run every sample of malware and make a normal scan PrevX is better than other antivirus software!

 

So I take it prevx did very well on your mini test when using all of its techniques?

As I knew it would of course

Prevx has technologys to detect even beyond execution, so its a sad world when we are people testing prevx on a right click scan basis.

Have fun testing

 

Wery good. But i need to make a lot of full system scans with system reboot, I need to run everyone sample. Always, the true is that PrevX in 0-day detection is in forefront, when I compared results from the newest zero days from Malware Domain List and Malwarebytes Forum only Bluepoint Security, sometimes was better than PrevX. Tests of like that are very time-consuming but the results in most situations are satisfactory. Minus of PreveX test are time and that system need reboot after malware removing. But something for something.

 

are you using normal or max settings?
my is near max i use it now stand alone, my pc is running much faster now :d

 

Self Protection - Medium
Advanced Heuristics - Maximum - Apply before Age/Popularity detection
Program Age Heuristics - High
Program Popularity Heuristics - High
Safe Online - Maximum configuration


Basic Settings - i dont change anything.