Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Andrew S.

PC Matic & Security Essentials

Recommended Posts

 

all i want is to see independent analysis covering many areas and comparing to many other products. i like graphs and tables, not shiny sales pitches.

VB wants you to cough up $20. for that info

 

this link might show better results for the VB 100 reviews (btw: congrats on that!)

http://www.virusbtn.com/vb100/archive/summary

I was surprised to see that F-Secure failed the windows XP sp3 test and several anti-spyware| malware | antivirus software programs are not tested for Windows 7/8. The days of XP are numbered to just 8 months now

Rob, I never thought for one second the your software was inferior in anyway, it's just the way it is presented on tv that gives me negative vibes, and I have to wonder if others feel the same way the advertizement is portrayed

Edited by Joe C

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the vb100 doesn't say much at all. the one linked earlier in the thread is a great analysis and the kind of thing i like to see.

 

also, i can confirm that the commercial has that "feel" just like the mycleanpc commercials. it just has the feel of something cheap and just not right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

maybe it's my screen, but the graph in the first link looked too jumbled up to tell anything accurately

 

this is what I get from VB100

http://www.virusbtn.com/vb100/latest_comparative/index

 

Posted Image

 

and this graph from AV Comparatives

http://www.av-comparatives.org/dynamic-tests/

 

Posted Image

Edited by Joe C

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

really quite simple joe, the higher and further to the right a red dot is the better an av it is. in order of preference you want your av to be furthest to the right regardless of height, because proactive means it stops the virus before it gets on the pc, but you also need a good reactive score too for when something slips past.

 

:b33r:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

terry...I understand how it works.

the dots are jumbled so close together you can't get a very accurate reading from one product to the other. Of course you can get a more detailed report for $20.

 

 

 

 

 

 

.

Edited by Joe C

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...you are not the only security product that uses a white list,...

 

Are we talking about the same thing here? We don't just mean that the user can add a program to a white list. We are talking about a white list of known good programs that last time I checked was over 650,000 entries. With SuperShield, if the program is not on the white list, it does not execute on the computer. What other product is using that approach?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

what's the difference whether you have a list of programs allowed to run supplied by your av or the user needs to add a program to their own whitelist of programs before it will run?

none as far as i can see, a whitelist is a whitelist from my (un-expert.) view point. :P

 

not saying the way your whitelist is implemented/created isn't unique but there are other security products out there that use whitelists, bit9 and kaspersky to name just 2 out of the many.

 

https://www.bit9.com/solutions/whitelisting/

http://whitelist.kaspersky.com/technology#acticle/65

 

:b33r:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

a huge problem with whitelisting is if a program on the whitelist gets compromised then it is allowed to roam free by the av product. at least in theory. that bit9 protections sounds quite interesting.

 

in regards to kaspersky: "the Whitelist database, located 'in the cloud'."

 

how is pcpitstop's whitelisting different?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

here's something that might interest someone.

 

google's approach with chrome and something they call camp. :- http://www.darkreading.com/monitoring/google-uses-reputation-to-detect-malicio/240152413

 

 

Google researchers have combined a number of reputation techniques to create a system that is 99 percent successful in detecting and blocking malicious executables downloaded by users of its Chrome browser.

 

Google's own real-world test -- deploying the system to 200 million Chrome users over six months -- found that CAMP could detect 98.6 percent of malware flagged by a virtual-machine-based analysis platform. In addition, it detected some 5 million malicious files every month that had escaped detection by other solutions. The researchers were not available for comment on the paper by publication time.

 

like all these systems (including pc matic.) that sends files back for analysis, in my opinion the biggest problem is always going to be how one feels about one's own privacy, because in reality you have none if they can look at any and everything on ones pc.

 

:b33r:

Edited by terry1966

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

2. We also showed here that Microsoft is one of the leading virus makers in this category. Does this not help give people insight into the problem that we are all facing?

 

Just a bit of humor here that I simply could not resist :P

 

Love the choice of words here Rob. I probably would have phrased it exactly like that.

 

I wholeheartedly agree Microsoft is a virus maker. :P It has indeed given me insight for more than a decade now. Yet so many others still chose to install that leading virus and they even willingly pay a lot of money to do it.

 

Perhaps you could use my signature in an ad? :lol:

Edited by Bruce

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bruce....We need windows to make a living! It would hurt the economy if they stopped the spread

 

on a side note: It seems that the more popular Apple becomes, the more they become vulnerable to security risks too

 

 

 

Norman Shark researchers at Black Hat USA later this month will provide details on new Mac malware they found in the attacks, as well as an inside look into what went on behind the scenes as they tracked this campaign -- including proof that the attackers are trying to hide their tracks in the wake of Norman Shark's report about them.

 

http://www.darkreading.com/attacks-breaches/hangover-persists-more-mac-malware-found/240158537

 

 

http://www.darkreading.com/attacks-breaches/security-researcher-takes-credit-for-app/240158670

 

 

 

 

 

 

.

Edited by Joe C

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

O.K. boys and girls, if you don't believe it works, try it, you'll become believers. In other words, don't knock it till you've tried it. ;)

 

 

 

 

:geezer:

what do you mean by works? seems to me judging by an earlier "my stupidity" comment you made that you got infected while using it anyway, even tho it "works". :P

 

don't use false logic and think just because you've never had any malware using x brand av that it must be because the av is great, lots of people have never had a virus even without running any av software.

 

all av's "work" some better than others, so it's just a question of how well each works compared to the competition and that really is the only thing that counts in my "un-expert" opinion. ;)

 

not suggesting pc matic is any better or worse than any other av, but until i see it being expertly put through it's paces and tested against other av's (on it's way from my understanding of what rob said earlier.) then it's just not software that i'd recommend to anyone yet.

 

:b33r:

Edited by terry1966

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

nothing wrong with that caintry it's your opinion. :tup:

 

but it's reputation isn't so great out in the real world of "google" :mrgreen:

don't know if that's a different older pc matic that got such poor name in the first place, but it isn't a good start when a site like wot says this :-

http://www.mywot.com/en/scorecard/pcmatic.com

 

:b33r:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well Terry I have little faith in the mywot ratings.

 

When I signed up at I had great ratings until "one day" when I posted and someone didn't like that I posted something "twice" so he started a campaign to drag my rating down. I never went back to that petty place full of petty people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

look at the comments...someone here has been busy refuting them.

 

 

btw, that whole web of trust thing is just tarded. rely upon users who have no technical knowledge? no thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

not saying they are a reliable or even fair at rating sites but it doesn't look good when you are looking for reviews on a product and run across them.

 

just look at the difference between that and our actual pcpitstop rating. :- http://www.mywot.com/en/scorecard/pcpitstop.com

 

it's pc matic itself that doesn't have such a good reputation. you just look need to look at amazons personal reviews where 19 out of 41 give it 1 star. http://www.amazon.com/PC-Pitstop-PCM-102-Matic/product-reviews/B0046ZLW1G

 

personally i blame it on bad tv adverts making claims that are just impossible to make for any software.

nothing worse than gaining a reputation for being scareware software except getting a rep for being software that spreads malware.

 

it's a shame really because the software itself probably doesn't deserve such a bad rep, but that's the one it does have at the moment.

 

with luck some independent testing by the experts will raise it's overall reputation soon, the vb100 is a good start for it's av's capabilities. :tup:

 

:b33r:

Edited by terry1966

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It has been a long hard road but after reading this thread I realized that we needed independent third party validation that we have the best security software. It was a lot of work to get our software to behave in the VB100's test lab like it does in the real world but we got it done.

 

vb100rap.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

number 1, proactive that is absolutely fantastic for your product and should definitely be worth bragging about in future adverts and definitely improve it's overall reputation. :clap:

 

but if your claims are to be believed it should have a 100% success rate. :P

 

still a very very respectable result, congrats to you and your development team. :tup:

 

:b33r:

 

don't forget customer service also plays a very big part in a softwares reputation so might be worth looking into setting up a help line too along with the forum help they can access, even if it's only 12 to 4 local time and on week days or something.

Edited by terry1966

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

pity about the false positives but i guess over time the white list will improve and you will sort that out.

 

 

PC Pitstop PC Matic Home Security

Main version: 1.0.0.44

Update versions: N/A

Last 6 tests: 2 passed, 1 failed, 3 no entry

Last 12 tests: 3 passed, 1 failed, 8 no entry

PC Pitstop’s products have been appearing in our tests on and off for a little over a year now, and have managed a few passes with the ThreatTrack engine bundled into the company’s range of offerings. This month sees something different though, with a whitelisting solution also included. This operates on access only, so at the developers’ request, our usual testing patterns were reversed, with the bulk of the detection tests performed on-read, and on-demand scans used only where absolutely necessary.

The installation process is pretty fast and simple. The interface is fairly basic, but reasonably usable, with only a minimum of options to worry about. Stability wasn’t perfect, with the product collapsing several times under the pressure of dealing with lots of files, even clean ones, and shutting down protection completely several times during the test process.

Scanning speeds were very slow on demand, and overheads fairly high on access, with a hefty impact on our set of tasks but not too much use of memory or processor cycles.

Detection was superb in the RAP sets, almost perfect in the reactive sets, and very impressive indeed in the retrospective component. Sadly, this high detection rate comes at a price, with the whitelisting causing alerts on a large number of samples in our clean sets, including components of software from HP, IBM, Microsoft, ATI, Lenovo, Samsung, Lexmark, SAP, Sony and Oracle, as well as a raft of others from smaller software houses and open-source projects. There were also a handful of misses in the WildList sets, in both modes, meaning there is no VB100 award for PC Pitstop this month, despite an interesting effort.

VB100-fail.jpg
PCPitstop.gif

ItW on demand: 99.89%

ItW on access: 99.79%

False positives: 1065

Stability: Fair

https://www.virusbtn.com/virusbulletin/archive/2014/04/vb201404-comparative#id5071504

 

:b33r:

Edited by terry1966

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We had 1065 false positives. The number of good files in the test were slightly over a million. So our false positive rate is 1065/1000000 = .1% or a better measure is that our good file accuracy is 99.9%. To be honest, our rate is actually better than this. Our white list began in January 2011, and we only look at files that are users are executing. So if a file is more than three years old, and no one is using it any more, it will not show up on our white list, although it is very possible that it could show up on VB's one million good files. On top of that, our users, since we advertise on TV, are primarily consumers. The people have not shared with us their samples ( nor should they ) but they have told us qualitatively that quite a few of the false positives are what would be considered corporate type files such as from Oracle and so on.

 

My view is that the reactive number is kind of worthless and the only true measure of good software is the pro active and that is what we set out to do. We can get our reactive number slightly higher but as you can see, any decent vendors reactive scores are approaching 100%. The most real world test is the proactive test and that is where our white list shines. We also are going to improve the white list implementation. I think / hope that we can get our proactive score up to about 95%. I think you know that we no longer claim that we get 100% of the viruses, but 95% is head and shoulders over any other AV solution out there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

number 1, proactive that is absolutely fantastic for your product and should definitely be worth bragging about in future adverts and definitely improve it's overall reputation. :clap:

yep as you saw, i was impressed, :mrgreen:

 

 

I think you know that we no longer claim that we get 100% of the viruses,

nope didn't know that.

 

from a quick read it seems you only failed to get the vb100 because of the false positives.

 

so do wonder tho how hard it is to keep the md5 sums of the white list up to date so you have less false positives, guess it's only after the first user uploads a file that's recently been updated/patched so it's md5 sum has changed that someone at your end has to manually check it against the software maker and update the white list that the false positives for that software stop.

 

and with your 3 year limit i'd guess you are always going to get loads of those false positives in such tests anyway.

 

:b33r:

 

still think you should have a live chat feature/options during office hrs or something for pcmatic customers tho besides forum and email help.

Edited by terry1966

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...