SSUpdater's Anti-Malware test [CLOSED]

[Guest]

[ToM-X]

It's just detected a big lump of my samples from the 470 update.  Emailing some more now.

[darcjrt]

Welcome to the forum!!

Great Test. Will be waiting for a preventive-HPIS-Proactive-kinda-like test!!! This is where CIS will be #1 (R) (R)

Again, nice results. I like the speed results also.

Keep up the good work!

[panic]

The method we use in our test is simple and effective, fresh install of Windows XP SP3 in the virtual environment, we place our malware sample inside, we make full clones on which we install programs, update them, configure them to their maximum capabilities, disconnect from the internet so no new updates are possible, run on demand scans and remove what is detected, and what is left is........well you can figure out the rest

Maybe Comodo DiskShield could help you here.

Install XP and the malware samples and then shield the drive. Once shielded you could install the first test app, reboot and run your analyses. Once completed, unshield the drive. This will leave you back at a clean install with the samples untouched, ready to be re-shielded and have the second test app installed.

Hope this helps,
Ewen :-)

[Melih]

State.of.Security

Is it fair to say that you test with very current malware that is out there in the wild and not with malware left over from 1995?

And this is the reason Comodo does well because we do catch the latest? (our problem is not the latest malware which we get plenty of thanks to our users and contributors and organisations we work with. It is the malware from old old times that other testing orgs test with! that is why when tested for what matters, you can see what CIS can do)

Melih

[panic]

FYI - The user "panic" on the SSUpdater site is NOT the Comodo moderator "panic".

I call "Shenannigans"! 

Ewen :-)

[ToM-X]

Maybe Comodo DiskShield could help you here.

Install XP and the malware samples and then shield the drive. Once shielded you could install the first test app, reboot and run your analyses. Once completed, unshield the drive. This will leave you back at a clean install with the samples untouched, ready to be re-shielded and have the second test app installed.

Hope this helps,
Ewen :-)

*Slaps head*  Anyway...

I think it's unfair to test Anti-Spyware scanners with virus. If somebody came and looked at that ranking, they would think "Oh, Malwarebyte's look crap! right at the bottom it is!". Just because it's failed to catch virus, when it's only suppose to catch spyware.

So, I think it should be in a separate category, not the same as Anti-Virus

[V7chy]

*Slaps head*  Anyway...

I think it's unfair to test Anti-Spyware scanners with virus. If somebody came and looked at that ranking, they would think "Oh, Malwarebyte's look crap! right at the bottom it is!". Just because it's failed to catch virus, when it's only suppose to catch spyware.

So, I think it should be in a separate category, not the same as Anti-Virus

Agreed I think it’s a little bit unfair too.
But still it’s a great test! Keep up the good work!


V7chy

[state.of.security]

Well this is the Anti-Malware test and we gave our members a choice what to vote for, in all honesty all the programs tested , well the vendors say at least, that they detect all kinds of malware......so......
We have to be honest to ourselves, the future is in Anti-Malware products, which will prevent the possibility of  infection, and what we use today should only be used as a backup (in the same way that we use on demand scanners as a extra level of protection).
I always say that there were some very dangerous viruses in the past, but today, what is the possibility to get infected with viruses like Jerusalem,Tequila,Melissa,Lehigh,Chernobyl,Love Bug.......well it is very slim.
For modern age malware we need a modern age security solution

[doktornotor]

But still it’s a great test! Keep up the good work!

I beg to differ. This test is a complete piece of ****. Their methodology is completely broken and calling someone "crapware" about illustrates the level of professionalism of the "testers".

 

[DarkButterfly]

*Slaps head*  Anyway...

I think it's unfair to test Anti-Spyware scanners with virus. If somebody came and looked at that ranking, they would think "Oh, Malwarebyte's look crap! right at the bottom it is!". Just because it's failed to catch virus, when it's only suppose to catch spyware.

So, I think it should be in a separate category, not the same as Anti-Virus

It does not only detect spyware. It also detects other forms of malware as well, hence the name "Malwarebytes Anti-Malware".
Of course, testing this app against full antivirus+antispyware+other malware is not fair. It would be like racing a cat against a dog. They both run, but the god will lose, for the cat climbs trees!    

[state.of.security]

I beg to differ. This test is a complete piece of ****. Their methodology is completely broken and calling someone "crapware" about illustrates the level of professionalism of the "testers".

 

And what methodology would you recommend?

[ToM-X]

It does not only detect spyware. It also detects other forms of malware as well, hence the name "Malwarebytes Anti-Malware".
Of course, testing this app against full antivirus+antispyware+other malware is not fair. It would be like racing a cat against a dog. They both run, but the god will lose, for the cat climbs trees!    

Yes but the word Malware is so vague now days, so I stick with Spyware. Either way, very good. 

[doktornotor]

And what methodology would you recommend?

For starters go get a clue, stop calling competitors "crapware" and stop comparing applications that are totally incomparable and have a completely different purpose and scope.

But why should I advise someone who pretends to be a "tester"; you should know better yourself. 

[DarkButterfly]

And what methodology would you recommend?

I guess that if you guys make a live webcast (do you have enough bandwidth?) , where you collect the malware and then place them on the test system, and then install the antivirus, etc, then, perhaps they will believe it.        

I don't say that I don't, or that I do. I have my own opinions.

[Star Shadow]

We have to be honest to ourselves, the future is in Anti-Malware products, which will prevent the possibility of  infection, and what we use today should only be used as a backup (in the same way that we use on demand scanners as a extra level of protection).

Are you sure you are not a Comodo member? haha. This is exactly what Melih keeps saying all the time, in his blogs and on these forums, numerous times that prevention is the first line of defense, and then detection and removal. So, in many ways, you and Melih have similar philosophies. Back on the first page when I asked if you would consider doing a test on prevention, I had this fact in mind that prevention is the future. So, all the tests out there at just do detection pass up on the future. I guess detection tests are just easier to do?

I think you and Melih will have lots to talk about in the future since you two seem to agree with these basic principles.

[Tags:]