Forums
New posts
Search forums
News
Security News
Technology News
Giveaways
Giveaways, Promotions and Contests
Discounts & Deals
Reviews
Users Reviews
Video Reviews
Support
Windows Malware Removal Help & Support
Inactive Support Threads
Mac Malware Removal Help & Support
Mobile Malware Removal Help & Support
Blog
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Reply to thread
Menu
Install the app
Install
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
Software
Security Apps
Malwarebytes
Malwarebytes Premium -- Has it 'Jumped the Shark?'
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Durew" data-source="post: 804064" data-attributes="member: 64794"><p>I agree that is you would test MBAM (as a companion AV) alongside Windows Defender and WD catches everything that MBAM is not being tested. </p><p>The conclusion that this makes that one is back to the orignal testing of MBAM all by itself is something I disagree with. (IMHO testing should be more than just throwing malware samples at an AV). The task of an companion AV is (IMHO) to catch what the main AV missed/would miss. Every resource the companion spends on detecting/stopping malware that the main AV could catch as well is wasted, thus leaving the malware that the main AV can deal with out of the scope of the companion AV. Thus all samples/vectors/exploits that the main AV detects are to be removed from the test (not a succes, not a failure). Thus a test where all samples (etc.) are detected by windows defender is effectively a test with zero samples (etc.). Which is an insufficient test that does not say anything about the quality of the companion (except perhapts about conflicts with the main AV). I do not make any statements about how hard it is to make a sufficient test for a companion AV.</p><p></p><p>In a short analogy:</p><p>If I try to test a scriptblocker but can't find any scripts to test it with I should look harder or conclude that I can't test it, not throw executables at it.</p><p></p><p>Regards,</p><p>Durew</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Durew, post: 804064, member: 64794"] I agree that is you would test MBAM (as a companion AV) alongside Windows Defender and WD catches everything that MBAM is not being tested. The conclusion that this makes that one is back to the orignal testing of MBAM all by itself is something I disagree with. (IMHO testing should be more than just throwing malware samples at an AV). The task of an companion AV is (IMHO) to catch what the main AV missed/would miss. Every resource the companion spends on detecting/stopping malware that the main AV could catch as well is wasted, thus leaving the malware that the main AV can deal with out of the scope of the companion AV. Thus all samples/vectors/exploits that the main AV detects are to be removed from the test (not a succes, not a failure). Thus a test where all samples (etc.) are detected by windows defender is effectively a test with zero samples (etc.). Which is an insufficient test that does not say anything about the quality of the companion (except perhapts about conflicts with the main AV). I do not make any statements about how hard it is to make a sufficient test for a companion AV. In a short analogy: If I try to test a scriptblocker but can't find any scripts to test it with I should look harder or conclude that I can't test it, not throw executables at it. Regards, Durew [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Top