Jump to content

Any news about MBAM participation....


Recommended Posts

...in AV Comparatives or AV Test???

A year ago the developers promised to find a way to participate in AV Comparatives or AV Test . Meanwhile , this seems to be a dead idea.

So, has MBAM been ever tested anywhere / anyhow in recent years??  I remember in early days was a disaster in AV Comparatives.

I used MBAM for years , with virtually ZERO detections in real time (except foe websites, most of them FP).

Thanks!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Staff

***This is an automated reply***

Hi,

Thanks for posting in the Malwarebytes 3 Help forum.

 

If you are having technical issues with our Windows product, please do the following: 

Spoiler

If you haven’t already done so, please run the Malwarebytes Support Tool and then attach the logs in your next reply:

NOTE: The tools and the information obtained is safe and not harmful to your privacy or your computer, please allow the programs to run if blocked by your system.

  • Download Malwarebytes Support Tool
  • Once the file is downloaded, open your Downloads folder/location of the downloaded file
  • Double-click mb-support-X.X.X.XXXX.exe to run the program
    • You may be prompted by User Account Control (UAC) to allow changes to be made to your computer. Click Yes to consent.
  • Place a checkmark next to Accept License Agreement and click Next
  • You will be presented with a page stating, "Welcome to the Malwarebytes Support Tool!"
  • Click the Advanced Options link
    welcome mbst.png
  • Click the Gather Logs button
    gatherlogs.png
  • A progress bar will appear and the program will proceed to gather troubleshooting information from your computer
  • Upon completion, click OK
  • A file named mbst-grab-results.zip will be saved to your Desktop
  • Please attach the file in your next reply. Click "Reveal Hidden Contents" below for details on how to attach a file:
    Spoiler

    To save attachments, please click the link as shown below. You can click and drag the files to this bar or you can click the choose files, then browse to where your files are located, select them and click the Open button.

    _mb_attach.jpg.a0465aaafd6cae688aa38ab16

     

    After posting your new post, make sure you click the Follow button near the top right of this page, and select the option "An email when new content is posted Change how the notification is sent" so that you're alerted by email when someone has replied to your post.

    _mb_follow.jpg.7868cc281f66ac22e919c2c48

    _mb_follow_options.jpg.dcb79fc10aa35beb0

One of our experts will be able to assist you shortly.

 

If you are having licensing issues, please do the following: 

Spoiler

For any of these issues:

  • Renewals
  • Refunds (including double billing)
  • Cancellations
  • Update Billing Info
  • Multiple Transactions
  • Consumer Purchases
  • Transaction Receipt

Please contact our support team at https://support.malwarebytes.com/community/consumer/pages/contact-us to get help

If you need help looking up your license details, please head here: https://support.malwarebytes.com/docs/DOC-1264 

 

Thanks in advance for your patience.

-The Malwarebytes Forum Team

Link to post
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, lock said:

...in AV Comparatives or AV Test???

A year ago the developers promised to find a way to participate in AV Comparatives or AV Test . Meanwhile , this seems to be a dead idea.

So, has MBAM been ever tested anywhere / anyhow in recent years??  I remember in early days was a disaster in AV Comparatives.

I used MBAM for years , with virtually ZERO detections in real time (except foe websites, most of them FP).

Thanks!

Are you really trying to relive the previous denunciations of Malwarebytes Anti-Malware you had, and still do I'm sure. If its not showing on AV Comparatives or AV Test, why the question? When, or if it happens, you'd be the 1st to know, since you're rather obsessed with this public display of just how good it is, and if it can't be PROVEN to your liking, you trash it.. Take the view of millions of users of this software and once and for all, believe them when they say this program has saved them from getting infected or getting transferred to a malware-scripted website. Also, when people tend to stick to a subject so extreme that it becomes apparent that its become an 'Agenda' for him/her, it then becomes apparent to others that the person is doing nothing more than trying to cause polarity and divisiveness, all for the fun of it, or else because the person has way to much time on their end...{QUOTE me anytime}..

-----------

I remember in earlier days, there was forum talk, and it was a disaster, just because someone was obsessed with a particular subject matter and was biased, and also made it a point to trash just because lack of publicity, and there was no other reason other than that. Something like, there was hiding being done, and as a consequence, that MUST mean there's cheating or covering up. False Assumption...since what is proven everyday after day doesn't need to have a huge public display to convince naysayers what is well liked and shown to work outstanding...

Edited by plb4333
Link to post
Share on other sites

Was just a simple question about "when" or "if" MBAM intend to get tested against competition (as promised)

Your approach of "believe and do not doubt" , by "millions of users" is rather religion than science.

Edited by lock
Link to post
Share on other sites

No. I never got infected while I used MBAM and MSE (3 years)

The same is valid now, when I am using only MSE (100% detection on AV Test)(1 year  and 6 months)

So, your question is somehow irrelevant with the subject in hand.

 

Edited by lock
Link to post
Share on other sites

You mentioned that Malwarebytes hasn't blocked anything save for a few websites which you suspected were FPs, so my question is absolutely relevant.  If you haven't been infected in all that time, then there was nothing for Malwarebytes to block, right?  I mean it would be different if you had Malwarebytes and repeatedly got infected, which would indicate that it wasn't providing adequate protection, but you haven't been infected so obviously either the security tools you're using are doing their jobs, or you've done well at staying safe online via good surfing habits and cautionary measures, or both.

Either way, it doesn't indicate some kind of failure on the part of Malwarebytes, because how can Malwarebytes detect/block anything when there is nothing to be blocked/detected?

Link to post
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, lock said:

Was just a simple question about "when" or "if" MBAM intend to get tested against competition (as promised)

Your approach of "believe and do not doubt" , by "millions of users" is rather religion than science.

The experience by millions of users is proof enough, at least for me. So the statement of 'believe and do not doubt' comes from this realism of everyday experiences. Science has nothing to do with this. When the excellent results are apparent, the means to get there, are apparent as well. Why would you specifically be any different than the other millions of MBAM users? Religion moreover than science is ridiculous. But, I will say you do need faith in products that have repeatedly been shown to work successfully. Not where you like to cherry pick samples that aren't real-life episodes. Definitions used by other other software isn't inherently better than behavioural aspects, only script using, so-to-speak. Whereas behavioural and heuristical analysis goes off script (Defs) and works exceedingly well. You yourself could be analyzed by behavioural, heuristical approaches in studies and I would venture to say, the results would be 99% accurate for your psychological profile. Are you ever going to come around, or continue to be a naysayer, all because you're into science and everything has a genesis of using a 'TEST TUBE' that leads to proofing

Edited by plb4333
Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, exile360 said:

Either way, it doesn't indicate some kind of failure on the part of Malwarebytes

You are right, this doesn't indicate neither failure nor success on the part of Malwarebytes. 

So, we want somebody to prove the success part. This is a common approach these days;

1. You want to get admitted to university? you have to bring your marks from high school ; just saying "I am smart" is not enough.

2. Want a new job ? you have to have credentials, again just saying (you, your mom and you friend) that you are the smartest one is not enough.

If MBAM is so good that, at a certain time was advertised as "next antivirus replacement" why hesitation to participate in any external review? 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Probably because of all the reasons that have been stated already regarding these tests and how ludicrous they are in regards to real-world results/performance (that's why even users of the most frequently 100%/#1 ranked AVs in these tests still show up frequently with infected systems and seek out Malwarebytes to begin with).  If it was as simple as doing well on these tests to substantiate which product provides the best protection, then there would only be a handful of AV/AM vendors still in business because they would have proven themselves in the real world by keeping all of their customers clean of infections 100% of the time, but that's not how it is and it never has been.

The entire premise behind the creation of Malwarebytes from the beginning was to create a tool/product capable of dealing with threats that the big AV vendors were really bad at by using new methods of detection and protection, and this philosophy has continued to this day with the development, acquisition and integration of many new technologies and protection/detection layers into Malwarebytes to the point where now it has proven itself to be so effective that they have millions of paying customers who swear by it because it has kept them clean and has shown itself to be effective against today's threats.  It's not just us saying that Malwarebytes is good, it is the word of mouth from PC repair technicians and security experts throughout the world as well as home users who run Malwarebytes on their own machines.  I would agree with you if it were just us saying these things with regards to Malwarebytes' effectiveness, but when it comes from independent sources with real world experience, that's quite a different story.

In the world of jobs, I'm a prime example.  I didn't even graduate high school (only got a GED when I was 20), never attended a day of college, hold precisely 0 technical certifications, yet Malwarebytes hired me to work for them based on my voluntary work here on their forums.  I proved myself and my knowledge through real-world experience and application of my abilities, and that was sufficient proof to them that I was worthy of hiring (I didn't go to them asking for a job, they came to me and asked if I wanted to work for them).  Malwarebytes and its effectiveness are very much the same way.

As for participation on comparative testing, I don't know where they are on that, but to my knowledge they still intend to do it.  I believe that other projects, including fixing issues with and making improvements to Malwarebytes 3, have delayed that process and that's why it hasn't happened yet.  So until then that's all I can really say is that yes, they still intend to do it, but no, it hasn't happened yet.

That said, I suspect an ulterior motive behind your postings given the fact that virtually all of them are negative in some way towards Malwarebytes, either the product, the company or both.  I cannot speculate as to the reason for this, as only you would know the answer to that, but I would advise anyone who reads your posts take a look back at your history of posts and topics here on the forums to judge for themselves and reach their own conclusions, but in my opinion there's a clear pattern and I don't think it's because you're motivated to help Malwarebytes and its users/customers.

Link to post
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, exile360 said:

I believe that other projects, including fixing issues with and making improvements to Malwarebytes 3, have delayed that process and that's why it hasn't happened yet.

Always there is  work "fixing issues with and making improvements to Malwarebytes 3" so basically the testing is pushed indefinitely...

 

27 minutes ago, exile360 said:

help Malwarebytes and its users/customers

I cannot help as long as I am not sure what MBAM is , in fact, doing.

 

35 minutes ago, exile360 said:

where now it has proven itself to be so effective

Any proof of this statement???

 

36 minutes ago, exile360 said:

it is the word of mouth from PC repair technicians and security experts throughout the world

Really? Waw !!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have never believed any of those tests because they may have been paid for results. What you believe has no bearing on anyone else. So stop bringing this crap up.

It is not wanted by the majority of users.

Link to post
Share on other sites

OK guys, please keep it civil.

While I myself have stated many times why I question these tests, I'm also a big proponent of transparency, and part of that transparency in the world of AV/AM software is participation in some kind of validated/certified testing by third party entities (though it is true that some do accept payment and have been known to skew results toward paying entities, though this is not the case for all of them).

I was among the first in the company to promote the idea of participating in these tests as soon as Malwarebytes began marketing the software as an AV replacement and I still believe that they should do so.  I just don't believe that they tell the whole story or that they actually prove the true efficacy of a product against threats and attacks in the real world so I put far more weight on word of mouth from users and customers who have experienced it first-hand along with my own experiences.  There is nothing wrong with testing, I just don't believe that it is nearly as important or representative of how a product will perform against live threats in real-world scenarios and so I believe that it isn't as important as some other factors.

That said, regardless of what I may think about Lock's motivations etc., his question and point is valid with regards to testing.  It is something that Malwarebytes should do, and the most recent information I heard on the subject was that they do in fact still intend to participate in such testing, however right now there are other more important things that they are working on, a major portion of which have been these reported performance issues with Ransomware Protection, certain components of real-time protection failing (mostly Web Protection and/or Exploit Protection) as well as the usual work of enhancing Malwarebytes ability to detect and remediate the latest threats; something that takes top priority whenever there is a new class of threat and/or new method of attack being observed in the wild which requires new tech in order to deal with (something that obviously does happen from time to time, though not as frequently these days as it once did now that the bad guys are mainly focusing on exploits, PUPs and ransomware for the most part, with a handful of rootkits being shipped with some of the PUPs).

Every week I report on trends, requests, feedback, bugs and issues to the Product team and one of the items I have submitted (once again) is that they participate in these kinds of third party comparative tests because it is considered a standard practice, because some users do put at least some degree of stock in the results, and because it offers a little more transparency to the users, customers and potential future users/customers to see how we do and how the various layers in Malwarebytes stand up against these kinds of tests/testing methods.  So yes Lock, on this point you and I do agree.  Malwarebytes should participate in this kind of testing, but based on what I have seen so far, the primary reason it's taken so long/hasn't happened yet is due to the bugs which have been affecting some users and customers throughout the past several versions of Malwarebytes, however the 3.5 beta is looking really good based on the feedback I've been gathering so far in that regard and has resolved most if not all of these issues for many users who have had this problem consistently with the past several releases, so hopefully 3.5 has finally ironed all of them out once and for all, though only time will tell once the final build goes live and more users start running it, but I am hopeful.

Edited by exile360
Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, exile360 said:

I just don't believe that they tell the whole story or that they actually prove the true efficacy of a product against threats and attacks in the real world so I put far more weight on word of mouth from users and customers who have experienced it first-hand along with my own experiences.  There is nothing wrong with testing, I just don't believe that it is nearly as important or representative of how a product will perform against live threats in real-world scenarios and so I believe that it isn't as important as some other factors.

Very well stated, testing is not representative of real world scenarios.

Link to post
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, bdg2 said:

@plb4333 For gods sake calm down, these barely understandable rants just because somebody doesn't love Malwarebytes as much as you do nothing but make you look weird.

I was not riled up when posting. I was just trying to lay claim to how MBAM works without the Defs, like other AV softwares. If it was barely understandable to you, its because I don't express myself very well. Never have. I appreciate MBAM, but I'm not in love with the program and trying to defend it tooth and nail. But if you were to see in another forum where this other poster has been and what was said against MBAM, you'd probably know why I defended with the emphasis I had. I think my post was actually on target for how it works and, where did you see exclamation marks? Or name calling? And then you presumed I was all riled up to the point of practically gibberish, hard to understand?. But, since I wasn't riled, I didn't need to calm down

Link to post
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, plb4333 said:

I was not riled up when posting. I was just trying to lay claim to how MBAM works without the Defs, like other AV softwares. If it was barely understandable to you, its because I don't express myself very well. Never have. I appreciate MBAM, but I'm not in love with the program and trying to defend it tooth and nail. But if you were to see in another forum where this other poster has been and what was said against MBAM, you'd probably know why I defended with the emphasis I had. I think my post was actually on target for how it works and, where did you see exclamation marks? Or name calling? And then you presumed I was all riled up to the point of practically gibberish, hard to understand?. But, since I wasn't riled, I didn't need to calm down

After more thinking: I did over-react, I agree. I was trying to take his statements one by one and reply. But you're right, I did over do it. Sometimes I am hard to understand what I write. I have mentioned this before in posts, and don't always express well. Thank you for bringing this to my attention, as its something I need to work on. I had just come from another forum  recently where this OP had been before and I seen all his posts bashing MBAM, so I'm sure I was too emotional to post. I do however think your statement of calling me wierd for how I put the words together, is over the top.

Link to post
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, digmorcrusher said:

Very well stated, testing is not representative of real world scenarios

AV Test is using the following "scenarios":

  • Protection against 0-day malware attacks, inclusive of web and e-mail threats (Real-World Testing)
  • Detection of widespread and prevalent malware discovered in the last 4 weeks (the AV-TEST reference set)
  • Slowing-down when launching popular websites
  • Slower download of frequently-used applications
  • Slower launch of standard software applications
  • Slower installation of frequently-used applications
  • Slower copying of files (locally and in a network)
  • False warnings or blockages when visiting websites
  • False detections of legitimate software as malware during a system scan
  • False warnings concerning certain actions carried out whilst installing and using legitimate software
  • False blockages of certain actions carried out whilst installing and using legitimate software

 

Which one, is NOT, in your opinion  a real life scenario??"?

Link to post
Share on other sites

This will be my only reply

No every one has the same computer configuration, surfing habits, computer knowledge or the same layers of protection on their computers.

Thus, if a AV test 98% it does not mean it will protect every user at a 98% rate. 

Real world scenario is that is may protect some users better than others.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's part of the nature of reviews of ANYTHING from cars to hairspray that they don't tell the whole story and that they can be biased by chance or corruption.

I really don't think many people need to be reminded of this.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem is, the way these comparative tests are presented, they try to make it seem like indisputable scientific proof rather than a product review, when in reality it's much closer to the latter than the former more often than not, especially when you see other actual product review sites conducting similar tests with random live samples and coming to very different conclusions and diverse results.

I think the real problems are that first, it's really hard to accurately test against any current threat in a realistic way because they are so polymorphic, seldom living beyond a few hours at the most before the links go dead and because they also alter their attack methods based on everything from the browser being used, to the OS and even geo-location information to determine whether to attack and what tactics to use, not to mention checking to see if certain security products are installed (some threats won't even try to run if they see certain security software active/registered with Security Center/Action Center).  Then of course there's the issue that the number of samples being tested and the range of threats, threat families and threat classifications being tested are seldom diverse enough to provide a truly comprehensive view of a security product's capabilities and you end up with results that can be more than a little misleading with regards to how any product will perform in the real world.

Conducting realistic testing is hard, and I don't envy these organizations attempting to do it.  I understand that they are bound by the same limitations as everyone else when trying to replicate an attack consistently to be fair to all of the products being tested and I realize that's a big part of why the scope of such tests tend to be so limited, but unfortunately it also means that the picture they paint with their findings typically do not tell the entire story.

I am hopeful that things will improve as more within the testing industry realize the problems involved and the ways that threats have changed in the past couple of decades and that the old methods of using zoos of samples and captured binaries aren't going to cut it any more, but it's going to take time and innovation and a lot of work to get there.

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, bdg2 said:

It's part of the nature of reviews of ANYTHING from cars to hairspray that they don't tell the whole story and that they can be biased by chance or corruption.

I really don't think many people need to be reminded of this.

I'm not sure what to think of your post here. Is it where you're trying to find fault again with me, after I admitted over-doing it a bit? I mentioned there were some things for me to work on, and I assume you're saying I'm still some ugly person in a forum who yells at people and is all riled up, attacking, etc... after 1 post and an admittance by me for being a little emotional, but definitely not attacking? If so, r u for real? I'm beginning to think you might have some wierdness involved. I mentioned differences between a scientific approach using virus defs and one that uses behavioural, heuristical, plus has millions of users who are completely satisfied, meaning they're protected and all you can think about is condeming me. Good Grief..move on with yourself. "I really don't think many people need to be reminded of this."

Link to post
Share on other sites

Since this thread has devolved into personal arguments, I'm going to lock it.

To answer the original question, there's no new news yet about the participation other than we're still aiming to participate. Once we have new information, we will be sure to share it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
Back to top
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

This site uses cookies - We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.