Antimalware-test with 5000 2-year OLD samples, MBAM detects only 3% !?

hi !

i found this on Anti-Malware Reviews - A collection of reviews, tests, awards and personal opinions of anti-malware software.

"PC help and news website raymond.cc has published an amateur test which results we do not want to keep quiet about. For the test two sets of first 500 and then 5000 samples consisting of almost two years old Malware files were created and 93 different products had to prove how many pests they could detect. The 500 samples strong first set’s winner is Emsisoft Anti-Malware with a clean 100% detection – just Avira was able to detect all the threats aswell, while all the other products detected 9x% or even less.

Obviously the 5000 samples strong set 2 was more difficult for the security programs, as none was able to detect 100% here.
But again Emsisoft Anti-Malware achieved the best result with 99.72%, in front of Avira Premium (99.22%), Twister (99%) and Kaspersky (98.48%).

Surprisingly some very well known programs showed really bad performances like Malwarebytes’ Anti-Malware (3%) or Ad-Aware (58.44%)."


MBAM (3%) detection on almost 2-year old samples ?
oh...

read the whole story here: http://www.raymond.cc/forum/spyware-...-malwares.html

hackerman1 said:

( ... )
MBAM (3%) detection on almost 2-year old samples ?
oh...
( ... )

That is very worrying ... Mainly because it's anti-malware usually indicated here on the forum on issues involving malware at its root ... Hopefully these "loopholes" in detections are urgently remedied!
Congratulations for this thread!

Just a quick note:
http://www.raymond.cc/blog/ didn't published this results.
It was published on it's forums by Sujay (regular poster but as far I know he is not a writer in raymond blog)

So, as far as I can remember It was never published on raymond.cc and it is in no way officially connected with their testing.
It is an independent test done by their forum poster.

jav said:

Just a quick note:
http://www.raymond.cc/blog/ didn't published this results.

who said that "raymond.cc/blog" published it ?

but perhaps you are referring to the first line in the post:
"PC help and news website raymond.cc has published an amateur test... " ?

jav said:

It is an independent test done by their forum poster.

yes, and you can see that in the first line: "...amateur test..."

also look at the URL i posted:

"http://www.raymond.cc/forum/spyware-viruses/21574-testing-the-on-demand-detection-of-different-av-with-old-malwares.html"

I am not criticizing you.
I am just pointing out at misleading information posted by Emsisoft press group:

"PC help and news website raymond.cc has published an amateur test which results we do not want to keep quiet about.

As you can see it misleads reader to think it is an official test processed and published by www.raymond.cc (which is wrong)
And next statement was just to justify my previous one

EDIT: ok, I see actually thier title was more clear (which I haven't noticed before):
"Raymond.cc user test with old Malware"

jav said:

I am not criticizing you.
I am just pointing out at misleading information posted by Emsisoft press group:

"PC help and news website raymond.cc has published an amateur test which results we do not want to keep quiet about.

As you can see it misleads reader to think it is an official test processed and published by www.raymond.cc (which is wrong)
And next statement was just to justify my previous one

EDIT: ok, I see actually thier title was more clear (which I haven't noticed before):
"Raymond.cc user test with old Malware"

jav: no worries, i did not take it as any critic against me.
and please read my previous post again, as i edited while you replied.
yes, i agree that the present expression IS misleading.
i also first read it as an "Official" test by raymond.cc, only when i read the "full" story i realized it was a forum-post.

anyway, if those results for MBAM is correct, it once again shows that EAM has better detection-rate than MBAM...

EDIT: you are right, the title says "...user test...", but i didn´t see it, i just read the text below.

"Malwarebytes policy on including malware sample detections:
If it is detected by a majority of the AV companies, we do not include the detection in our product.
We specialize in detecting and removing what others do not."

malexous said:

"Malwarebytes policy on including malware sample detections:
If it is detected by a majority of the AV companies, we do not include the detection in our product.
We specialize in detecting and removing what others do not."

The above was credited to nosirrah, who is Bruce Harrison, Vice President of Research, Malwarebytes' Anti-Malware.

Thank you, Corrine. Unfortunately, where I found that quote, no credit was given.

The Wilders thread merely indicated nosirrah. Anyone not familiar with MBAM wouldn't know who he is.

Personally, I don't put much credence in user tests. It is also sometimes difficult to put much credence in many of the tests we see on the Internet since they are sponsored by security vendors. As the saying goes, "the proof is in the pudding" or, in this case, the proof is in the results we, as users, experience.