malwarebytes' vs. a-squared free

[ma3oony]

hello everyone

this is my first topic and i hope to be a good help to make this app more popular than ever in my place

first of all im all into malwarebytes' by all means... and always had proven for me it's the best ever

well recently im stuck in some forum im writing in ... and he came up of a-squared just to tease me and prove that malwarebytes is nothing before it...

i already wrote a topic bout malwarebytes with an extend up to 20 page of successful results

but now it's a new challenge for us , and im sure its' pretty easy on us

ok the last thing he came up with was this test result:

can you provide me if this result is correct or from an old test of database?

i need the answer soon to kick his little "fan-boy" attitude

i hope that im not a bother for all of you in this kind of topics

[ma3oony]

yea i forgot this pic too :

i know it's from 1.42 and now we're at 1.44 ... what's the result now??

sorry again

[js9600]

Those who want to aruge on the internet with graphs would need a link Even ClamWin and Spybot&Destroy can probably make Malwarebytes look silly. Depends a little bit on testing conditons - like who is doing it, to begin with. Reminds me of the test showing IE8 stops 80+ % of all malware exe-files. People with knowledge and degrees will swear by such comforting findings Others will shake head. Separating BS and marketing from reality is a major task. Especailly with security stuff since it is very possible Malwarebytes can suck 1 day - but then next day be king. More or less meaningless to evaluate fixed situations. Evaluate history, peoples experiences, your own instead.

[mountaintree16]

You might want to read this about A-Squared:

http://www.malwarebytes.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=19765

My anti-malware scanner and real-time protection of choice will always be Malwarebytes

Sheer numbers don't always give the full picture either; its about how and what a scanner/software program will detect, not how much it will detect Malwarebytes also has excellent heuristics which also gives a deeper scan at the end of the scan.

[whatmeworry?]

I don't have the in-depth knowledge of Malwarebytes that's needed to respond in detail to the a-square challenge. However, it seems to me that selecting malware to use in such a trial can easily skew the results and distort the capabilities of various anti-malware programs. You simply choose malware that you know the program you like is designed to find. As I understand it, Malwarebytes isn't intended to find your garden-variety trojans and other malware that most good antivirus programs will catch. Instead, Malwarebytes concentrates on identifying and removing serious malware that many antivirus programs miss. MBAM is not intended to replace an antivirus program, nor to do the work that an antivirus program does. It supplements the antivirus programs. I don't know whether that's a-square's mission as well. Somehow, I don't think it is.

[js9600]

Just make a graph showing 100% for Malwarebytes and 0% for anything else. Then you win ma3oony Sign it Dr. Malware and your opponent will surrender.

[pondus]

Malwarebytes

[Firefox]

[ma3oony]

Those who want to aruge on the internet with graphs would need a link Even ClamWin and Spybot&Destroy can probably make Malwarebytes look silly. Depends a little bit on testing conditons - like who is doing it, to begin with. Reminds me of the test showing IE8 stops 80+ % of all malware exe-files. People with knowledge and degrees will swear by such comforting findings Others will shake head. Separating BS and marketing from reality is a major task. Especailly with security stuff since it is very possible Malwarebytes can suck 1 day - but then next day be king. More or less meaningless to evaluate fixed situations. Evaluate history, peoples experiences, your own instead.

those who shake their head im going to cut'em all

here is the link for the stupid test:

http://malwareresearchgroup.com/?page_id=2

[Baz.]

those who shake their head im going to cut'em all

Polite warning to all members: Please keep the discussions polite and civil otherwise you will no longer be welcome to post on the forum.

[ma3oony]

You might want to read this about A-Squared:

http://www.malwarebytes.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=19765

My anti-malware scanner and real-time protection of choice will always be Malwarebytes

Sheer numbers don't always give the full picture either; its about how and what a scanner/software program will detect, not how much it will detect Malwarebytes also has excellent heuristics which also gives a deeper scan at the end of the scan.

ya sure,,, i was a reader here b4 registration , but now i need to get in depth with ya all so i can make him eat dust

mmm maybe i'll try to provide a translated version of my quarrel with that guy

i told him bout this but he denied that he care bout these matters, and put it as out of topic reply, what a poor he was so speechless

all to care is the numbers like #@#!@#

i tried both of them, but my first to none is mbma ... he wont be convinced out of his ego ... but at least i must close each -cheap- path he can use to prove that mbma is nothing to compare

[ma3oony]

Polite warning to all members: Please keep the discussions polite and civil otherwise you will no longer be welcome to post on the forum.

ok i do apologize

im sorry that i got over excitement

u may edit it if u like

sorry again

[ma3oony]

I don't have the in-depth knowledge of Malwarebytes that's needed to respond in detail to the a-square challenge. However, it seems to me that selecting malware to use in such a trial can easily skew the results and distort the capabilities of various anti-malware programs. You simply choose malware that you know the program you like is designed to find. As I understand it, Malwarebytes isn't intended to find your garden-variety trojans and other malware that most good antivirus programs will catch. Instead, Malwarebytes concentrates on identifying and removing serious malware that many antivirus programs miss. MBAM is not intended to replace an antivirus program, nor to do the work that an antivirus program does. It supplements the antivirus programs. I don't know whether that's a-square's mission as well. Somehow, I don't think it is.

the anti-virus is a must for sure...

and these programs are like supporters

the problem that a-squared can gain alot of results including old registry files and cookies and the worst thing is some of false positive

so that's the problem...

and because it's embedded with ikarus signature that a little thing to be showy

[ma3oony]

Just make a graph showing 100% for Malwarebytes and 0% for anything else. Then you win ma3oony Sign it Dr. Malware and your opponent will surrender.

im a loser at photoshop

maybe i'll at last if some big names will support me

j/k

[ma3oony]

Malwarebytes

[js9600]

May be you should investigate who Malware Research Group is? What is their history? Seems like test is not relevant for Malwarebytes, like whatmeworry said. Thought you were going to link to your private battle of the numbers, heh. Unless you find it funny it is waste of time. Look up NSS lab and their browser filter test. Check how many approved of that. How they presented test was perfect for headlines too. Much usability for tech journalists Good example of how reality and "lab" tests don't really match at all. Nothing beats history so rely on that and your own experience with programs.

[nosirrah]

A-Aquared and MBAM are not even in the same class . A-Squared is antispyware and antivirus combined , Malwarebytes is designed to work with other AVs . These 2 apps are not in competition with with each other , this only exists in the minds of those who don't understand both applications .

If you are reading test results that do not involve samples pulled directly from web then you are wasting your time , consider the following :

A scanner is used on a folder of 100,000 samples and 99,000 are detected , great huh ?

Not quite , what if the 1000 missed are all from the last week , there is no way to tell in that kind of testing what the % actually means for malware from today .

As far as detection rates go look at the independent testing done against MBAM where ALL of the samples are pulled from web , those are real tests . Fake testing will say you failed if you miss an exploit PDF for example . What if MBAM blocks the IP of the site , IP of where the exploit draws from and the actual target malare , obviously you are far more than covered . The only way to test this is by pulling the sample from the web through protection . The other place to look it where IT pros and help forums go , they are hyper critical over there tools and demand that they are fast and effective .

[ma3oony]

May be you should investigate who Malware Research Group is? What is their history? Seems like test is not relevant for Malwarebytes, like whatmeworry said. Thought you were going to link to your private battle of the numbers, heh. Unless you find it funny it is waste of time. Look up NSS lab and their browser filter test. Check how many approved of that. How they presented test was perfect for headlines too. Much usability for tech journalists Good example of how reality and "lab" tests don't really match at all. Nothing beats history so rely on that and your own experience with programs.

i took a quick look there...

sure there is a lot of reviews, but at least they share a little of common scenes, but if there is some sites that overlook a critical point in some product the it will be a bad thing unless you try'em all

[ma3oony]

A-Aquared and MBAM are not even in the same class . A-Squared is antispyware and antivirus combined , Malwarebytes is designed to work with other AVs . These 2 apps are not in competition with with each other , this only exists in the minds of those who don't understand both applications .

If you are reading test results that do not involve samples pulled directly from web then you are wasting your time , consider the following :

A scanner is used on a folder of 100,000 samples and 99,000 are detected , great huh ?

Not quite , what if the 1000 missed are all from the last week , there is no way to tell in that kind of testing what the % actually means for malware from today .

As far as detection rates go look at the independent testing done against MBAM where ALL of the samples are pulled from web , those are real tests . Fake testing will say you failed if you miss an exploit PDF for example . What if MBAM blocks the IP of the site , IP of where the exploit draws from and the actual target malare , obviously you are far more than covered . The only way to test this is by pulling the sample from the web through protection . The other place to look it where IT pros and help forums go , they are hyper critical over there tools and demand that they are fast and effective .

hmmmmmmmm....

i got the basic idea ... so are you pointing that the samples which mbma failed to detect were originally not relevant to it???

and a-squared success to detect it thanx to ikarus anti-virus engine???

if that so then im assuming that any regular anti-virus can detect what mbma failed in ... and a-squared detected it by default because of his engine...

but why all sites comparing them with each other tho the difference in concept?

[js9600]

Is called promotion/marketing/advertising. This is real reason many of these tests are done. As said keyword is "independent" - and good luck finding that http://www.anti-malware-reviews.com/

[nosirrah]

i got the basic idea ... so are you pointing that the samples which mbma failed to detect were originally not relevant to it???

Not exactly , I am saying that as the samples were not pulled from the web so part of MBAM was intentionally crippled and second it could not matter less if a static sample is detected , 50 new variants could have been generated since then . If the sample is not blocked from the web then noting other than legacy definitions were tested .

and a-squared success to detect it thanx to ikarus anti-virus engine???

Combine MBAM with NOD32 or Avira , wont detection go up ?

if that so then im assuming that any regular anti-virus can detect what mbma failed in ... and a-squared detected it by default because of his engine...

The point is that unless the samples are pulled from web through protection nothing was actually tested so the actual test failed .

but why all sites comparing them with each other tho the difference in concept?

We are good enough to compete with multi-engine and suite type apps quite frankly .

[js9600]

I knew I had seen MRG before, only took 1 day to rewind http://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?t=251113 On a level where they use fake usernames. This is what some companies use as promotion and why refering to x or y test is waste of time. Even more to debate since topic might as well be a 3 week old weather forecast. Not all is like those guys hopefully but then again - read the NSS lab test showing 83% hitrate for IE8 Smartsreen - from real live samples! That was the whole point of the test so valid numbers. Stay skeptical.

[Sveta MRG]

First of all, Hello everybody

The idea of this test was not to compare Malwarebytes to A-SQUARED directly (or any other program), we took a few programs from each Security Software category and created a scenario where all of them can be used. In my personal opinion, Malwarebytes performed very well, much better then some full featured Anti-Malware applications which were used in our parallel private test with the same samples and scenario.

Conclusion in our review of Malwarebytes reflects directly how we feel about this program, this product does exactly what is was designed to do and it does very well.

Regards,

Sveta

[RubbeR DuckY]

Sveta,

Thank you for your contribution .

[Chris_MRG]

I would like to say hello as well

We welcome feedback and from Malwarebytes