MBAM results in MRG Efitas Q2 /2017

[lock]

 https://www.mrg-effitas.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/MRG-Effitas-360-Assessment_2017_Q2_wm.pdf

Q2 2017 In the Wild 360 / Full Spectrum Test Results :     66.3% detection rate

Ransomware : 89.2% detection rate

Financial Malware:   76% detection rate

PUA :    90% detection rate

[siliconman01]

These result are a bit depressing as related to Malwarebyte's ability to protect.  

[lock]

8 hours ago, siliconman01 said:

These result are a bit depressing as related to Malwarebyte's ability to protect.  

I wonder how having MBAM besides a well known antivirus (ESET, for example) would be beneficial with so low detection rates.

[mynorgeek]

22 hours ago, siliconman01 said:

These result are a bit depressing as related to Malwarebyte's ability to protect.  

 

14 hours ago, lock said:

I wonder how having MBAM besides a well known antivirus (ESET, for example) would be beneficial with so low detection rates.

For the amount of problems it has been causing, a user needs to look at that as well when deciding if its effectiveness is worth keeping it on one's machine.

And by problems, I mean quirkiness, protections suddenly not working, upgrades going bad, etc.

I also run MBAM alongside of ESET NOD32 AV as a complementary protection, and I will not even consider upgrading until I see a lot fewer issues on this forum.

The day may come when I pull MBAM from real-time protection duty and relegate it to simple on-demand scanner status.

 

[AdvancedSetup]

A bit of history

 

https://www.wilderssecurity.com/threads/mrg-rogue-software-test.251113/

 

https://www.wilderssecurity.com/threads/new-mrg-test-20-real-time-test.252519/#post-1535671

 

 

[archival]

Lots of food for thought there-thank you!

[mynorgeek]

18 hours ago, AdvancedSetup said:

A bit of history

 

Why not say what's on your mind instead of invoking two 8 year old threads?  An official response to the test results would be preferable to an insinuation.

 

[AdvancedSetup]

I don't speak for the company, but from my own personal opinion if someone has shown they have a tainted view of our company, I can assure you without personal contact (which there never was that I know of) their view is/would still be tainted and yes, they still don't test how infections really happen. It is difficult as a researcher to get new samples as they're always checking, testing, to make sure their junk is not caught by security companies or honeypots or known IP, etc. It is pretty much impossible to properly test and gauge effectiveness but the general public will never accept that so these reports are pushed out by sites like this. 

If their report makes you feel better and you don't want to use our product, by all means chose what product you want to use. In the end, we want your computer safe for yourself and others.

Thanks

 

 

 

[mynorgeek]

5 minutes ago, AdvancedSetup said:

I don't speak for the company, but from my own personal opinion if someone has shown they have a tainted view of our company, I can assure you without personal contact (which there never was that I know of) their view is/would still be tainted and yes, they still don't test how infections really happen. It is difficult as a researcher to get new samples as they're always checking, testing, to make sure their junk is not caught by security companies or honeypots or known IP, etc. It is pretty much impossible to properly test and gauge effectiveness but the general public will never accept that so these reports are pushed out by sites like this. 

If their report makes you feel better and you don't want to use our product, by all means chose what product you want to use. In the end, we want your computer safe for yourself and others.

Thanks

 

 

 

Interesting that you "don't speak for the company" but then you reference using "our product".  Whatever.

Let's not turn this into a you-know-what-kind-of-a match.  I have seen a lot of security program developers get shitty with users who ask questions about test results.  And they always claim some version of what you just claimed... the test was tainted.  The implication there is what, by the way?  That the testing organization doesn't like you, or that you have not paid them their "fee" for giving you high marks?  Why exactly would these testers have vendettas against the programs that produce failed results?

Here's a simple question... has Malwarebytes ever achieved good results with MRG Effitas?  And if so, were you or anyone from Malwarebytes chiming in about the good results being tainted?  Or, if the answer is no, Malwarebytes has never achieved good test results from this outfit, then is it, in your opinion, fair for users to question the effectiveness of your software?

My chief concerns with MAB3 is that in addition to the poor test performance, I have experienced lots of problems with the software, on machines that are otherwise very stable.  Simply put, rather than anxiously looking forward to installing the latest version upgrade, I am very reluctant to upgrade, because with MAB, if it's not one thing, it's another.   I've been a user for many years, so I have some history of my own to fallback on with Malwarebytes.

 

Thanks

[AdvancedSetup]

I simply posted links to information. What you take away from it is up to you. Sorry, don't have time or concern to get into a he said/she said contest and why these type of topics are typically shut down because people get heated and post things in anger.

 

 

[mynorgeek]

10 minutes ago, AdvancedSetup said:

I simply posted links to information. What you take away from it is up to you. Sorry, don't have time or concern to get into a he said/she said contest and why these type of topics are typically shut down because people get heated and post things in anger.

 

 

I understand that you don't have time, but you did post a rather lengthy response to which I replied.

Please be advised that there is absolutely zero anger coming from me.  Zero.  Just wanted to be clear that there is no "heated" posting coming from me, Ron.

And I am at a loss to understand your "he said/she said contest" remark.  Don't see any he said/she said anywhere, so let's toss that out.

I would appreciate a reply to my question... I think it is a fair one.  I'll repeat...

--> Here's a simple question... has Malwarebytes ever achieved good results with MRG Effitas?  And if so, were you or anyone from Malwarebytes chiming in about the good results being tainted?  Or, if the answer is no, Malwarebytes has never achieved good test results from this outfit, then is it, in your opinion, fair for users to question the effectiveness of your software?

Thanks

[AdvancedSetup]

The links on Wildersforum are he said/she said.

Not that I'm aware of, but I don't follow those reports around as all of them are marketing for the public. As you learn and understand what's really going on you'd ignore them too. It is a sales and marketing tool and that's all it is. 

2 hours ago, mynorgeek said:

Interesting that you "don't speak for the company" but then you reference using "our product".  Whatever.

 

Sorry, but I think most people would read that as a bit of a negative way to start out a reply.