WSA Horrible Detection Rates....Wait...

I was starting to become alarmed by some of the tests coming from MRG, particularly this one...

http://malwareresearchgroup.com/wp-...PRE-Comparative-Assessment-September-2011.pdf

...then I did some basic Google searching on "malwareresearchgroup reputability' and came across some people refuting their trustworthiness in forums, like this one: http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r24101573-MRG-April-2010-On-Demand-Test-Results~start=20

Please keep that in mind before you quote their detection rates! There is NO WAY that Webroot SecureAnywhere could have scored that abysmally compared to those other products. Their test results do NOT line up with other major testing organizations. I do not trust MRG at this time and I discourage anyone from judging a product based solely on their flash tests and/or any other reports they generate.

Thus far, any testing entity that has evaluated Webroot SecureAnywhere have given it overwhelmingly positive reviews. Not only does this include CNET and of course PC Mag, but this also refers to the unofficial pre-results that AV-Test seems to have acquired according to CNET. (Thanks Joe!)

I edited this post to remove any negative tone towards GFI / Vipre. I have read plenty of positive reviews on their products, and according to the latest AV-Test results, Vipre is an exceptional anti-malware application. I hereby state that I have nothing against their company nor their products, and I apologize sincerely for the unintentional tone my original post had. The issue I have is with Malware Research Group, NOT GFI / Vipre. Thank you.

 

The other results seem somewhat correct. As for wsa/prevx not really sure because they dont submit their product anywhere for testing.

 

Emsisoft and Defensewall have always done exceptionally well with MRG tests so I don't think there is a major conspiracy going on here.

 

I've been reading reports from the other major, reputable testing organizations and their results seem considerably different than what MRG tends to report.

I also take into consideration documented videos I've seen of Prevx/WSA completely protecting systems from zero day malware, and the independent reviews of CNET and more respectably PC Magazine.

When you add it all up, there's no way Webroot SecureAnywhere could have scored 54%. There's just no way. Whether this be a flaw in their testing methodology altogether, or a flaw that specifically affected the way WSA was intended to function, I'm not sure; but I am highly skeptical of their results...

 

Webroot didn't score less than 50%. They scored 54%.
Relax. We'll have to wait for results from AV-Test or Av-Comparatives.

 

The thing worries me most here is that people are turning to MRG as they have the only (supposed) hard results currently for WSA/Prevx, yet if you do a quick Google search on MRG trustworthiness you will see some interesting findings...

 

O.K. Don't relax.

 

I'm unfortunately coming to the conclusion that security software is unreliable in terms of quality. There is a significant amount of variance from half yearly increments, even monthly increments! Heck, when Microsoft Security Essentials first came out there was an AV-Comparitives test where it was the only free product that made Advanced+. I know that it has averaged out to be only Advanced as of late, but still...

If someone was to buy antivirus protection based on who got the best results in one test, they'd be seriously disappointed two months later when the next test results come in. It varies that much, and shady, questionable testing organizations don't help.

Anyway, I'm just throwing this out there. My real concern is for Prevx/Webroot, which is the only product I should be talking about if I'm posting here. I need to make sure I stay on topic.

And @Thankful: I apologize as I did not mean to seem rude. I am quite an odd individual and I get attached to certain software solutions and it upsets me greatly if I fear they are failing in any way.

 

I won't say anything besides the fact that we weren't aware of these tests done by MRG, nor did we receive any context/information/chance to refute any results.

AV Test and AV Comparatives will be testing WSA in the next test cycle. I believe our old product, Webroot Internet Security, will be in the immediate next cycle, but directly after WSA will be in place. However, during the beta, some non-official, not fully public test results were shown (see the "Performance" area):

http://download.cnet.com/Webroot-SecureAnywhere-Complete-2012/3000-18510_4-75219495.html

Prevx tended to not go through these official tests but we will definitely be a part of them as Webroot

 

PrevX (not WSA) scored 56/80 or 70% for the MRG Flash tests during 2011. This is certainly a respectable score.

 

WSA includes 100% of the detection of Prevx.

 

Probably because MRG does not follow the conventions that most independent testing organizations do. Again, I have serious doubts on their trustworthiness at this time. I'm not trying to sound like a jerk, but this stuff is serious and reputability is huge. I find it hard to trust MRG and if you do a Google search you will see why.

Just to set the record straight, all known reputable organizations that have in any way evaluated Webroot SecureAnywhere have given it extremely positive reviews with almost no cons whatsoever. Only the....I'll say "questionable" one, MRG, has said otherwise. If that doesn't raise any red flags for you...

And I'm not saying MRG is corrupt, I'm simply saying I don't trust their test methodology. There are review sites that literally are corrupt or commercially biased to say the least, such as the TopTenReviews. ;-)

 

Cloud Antivirus: http://malwareresearchgroup.com/201...broot-secureanywhere-antivirus-november-2011/ vs

Traditional AV : http://malwareresearchgroup.com/201...sh-test-–-eset-nod32-antivirus-december-2011/ i cannot believe Eset Nod 5.0 detected more than webroot Secureanywhere because WSA is supposed to be a CLOUD ANTIVIRUS and the they suppose detect more fast the 0 day zero malware :S

 

Eset is a quality AV with excellent heuristics.

 

But this test is about the OLD webroot security suite (version 7) and not WSA (version 8 ). Or I am missing something here?

 

This test is about the new product, WSA:
http://malwareresearchgroup.com/201...broot-secureanywhere-antivirus-november-2011/

 

But the original post from the OP (1st post) refers to another test not the one you have mentioned. So the "horrible detection" rates are actually not from WSA

 

That test uses Webroot Secure Anywhere 7.0.11.21.

 

WSA official Release was 8.0.0.40 or something like that , how come there is a 7.0 version? unless MRG made a mistake in the name.

 

What all does WSA include besides Prevx? Sophos sigs? Anything else?

 

It doesn't use Sophos - it includes all of Prevx, all of SpySweeper/in-house Webroot detections, and a much improved new version of Prevx's backend database which is substantially stronger than Prevx 3.0's.

 

No Sophos sigs!

TH

 

I don't think you can really compare the two test results because both sets of malware are not completely the same.

 

C'mon, man. Look at what you've said here.
First, that GFI paid MRG to endorse GFI (a serious allegation in and of itself, proffered with no proof, of course), but then you throw in that Webroot's poor showing was also part of this "under the table" GFI deal?
In your world of conspiracy, why was GFI not simply satisfied with looking good themselves, but also wanted Webroot to look bad?
I think your posting in this manner is very irresponsible, in addition to being hard to comprehend.
Note: And this assessment of your post would hold true regardless of whether or not I was using VIPRE. I'd feel the same way about your post if you were talking about any other AV company.

 

Note if this discussion turns into an argument over different products it will be closed as this is the Prevx & WSA support forum! And as for MRG I will keep my comments to myself!

Thanks,

TH