Flash Test Over @ Mrg

[Woodrow 0]

Hi guys,

 

Over at MRG

 

they are performing some daily flash tests of different security apps.

I see they have the Immunet Pro in the line up and I saw Immunet failed were Bitdefender passed.

As Immunet use Bitdefender in the pro version I wonder why this did happened?

Sveta over @ MRG pointed out that Bitdefender did catch this with its heuristic, not signatures.

Does Immunet only use the signatures from Bitdefender and not their engine with heuristics and all?

I am confused...

 

/W

[Guest Orlando]

Hi guys,

 

Over at MRG

 

they are performing some daily flash tests of different security apps.

I see they have the Immunet Pro in the line up and I saw Immunet failed were Bitdefender passed.

As Immunet use Bitdefender in the pro version I wonder why this did happened?

Sveta over @ MRG pointed out that Bitdefender did catch this with its heuristic, not signatures.

Does Immunet only use the signatures from Bitdefender and not their engine with heuristics and all?

I am confused...

 

/W

 

Immunet currently using a version of the heuristic engine by BitDefender (outdated), definitions aren't from BitDefender, but from Immunet.

 

That is not Immunet past, as new heuristic engine BitDefender saved it.

 

Orlando

[Woodrow 0]

To make this clear: Immunet is using an outdated engine from bitdefender as its TETRA?

U all know what happens when the milk is outdated.....

 

/W

[Guest Orlando]

To make this clear: Immunet is using an outdated engine from bitdefender as its TETRA?

U all know what happens when the milk is outdated.....

 

/W

 

TETRA is currently being updated and testing by the team, soon there will be a final version of the heuristic engine by Immunet, I'll inform Alfred to give you more news.

 

Orlando

[alfred 21]

Hi guys,

 

Over at MRG

 

they are performing some daily flash tests of different security apps.

I see they have the Immunet Pro in the line up and I saw Immunet failed were Bitdefender passed.

As Immunet use Bitdefender in the pro version I wonder why this did happened?

Sveta over @ MRG pointed out that Bitdefender did catch this with its heuristic, not signatures.

Does Immunet only use the signatures from Bitdefender and not their engine with heuristics and all?

I am confused...

 

/W

 

 

Hmm, guys. I am not sure where Orlando got his information from (Pedersen?) but we have some small misunderstandings. We do make use of BD's heuristic sigs and standards sigs. I strongly suspect MRG is out of date (as Orlando suggests) on our product or have an issue with updating through a proxy perhaps. In general terms of BD catches something, so should we.

 

al

[Guest Orlando]

Hmm, guys. I am not sure where Orlando got his information from (Pedersen?) but we have some small misunderstandings. We do make use of BD's heuristic sigs and standards sigs. I strongly suspect MRG is out of date (as Orlando suggests) on our product or have an issue with updating through a proxy perhaps. In general terms of BD catches something, so should we.

 

al

 

Some details were reported by etms51 me, but I think I had some error in translation or written, and so wrong. Sorry for my mistakes is just understanding.

 

However Immunet now is making a heuristic of its own.

 

Orlando

[markusg 2]

hmm perhaps you are using an older engine version, or have an other configuration for the engine...

[Woodrow 0]

Hmm, guys. I am not sure where Orlando got his information from (Pedersen?) but we have some small misunderstandings. We do make use of BD's heuristic sigs and standards sigs. I strongly suspect MRG is out of date (as Orlando suggests) on our product or have an issue with updating through a proxy perhaps. In general terms of BD catches something, so should we.

 

al

 

Al, I doubt that Sveta and Chris would make a mistake like that. I did comment the issue over at MRG and got this from Sveta:

 

"BitDefender’s heuristics made the detection, not signatures. The infection on Immunet’s system was verified.

 

Regards,

Sveta"

 

Just in case, you should contact them to sort it out as it would benefit Immunet if all settings are correct.

 

/W

[alfred 21]

Al, I doubt that Sveta and Chris would make a mistake like that. I did comment the issue over at MRG and got this from Sveta:

 

"BitDefender’s heuristics made the detection, not signatures. The infection on Immunet’s system was verified.

 

Regards,

Sveta"

 

Just in case, you should contact them to sort it out as it would benefit Immunet if all settings are correct.

 

/W

 

 

We use BD Heuristics as well as our own in the Plus version. They were out of date for sure. The Plus version does not require network access for conviction queries so if it missed it, it was because the detection, heuristic or otherwise, was not present at the time.

 

al

[Pedersen 137]

I am not into this Alfred i really dont know where they got information by

[markusg 2]

ok but the other results are looking good

[alfred 21]

I am not into this Alfred i really dont know where they got information by

 

 

I spoke to them and they sent us the threats (really nice guys to deal with) and it turns out, the product was not updated. We do detect that particular threat.

[Pedersen 137]

Thats great Alfred! And yeah they are nice. I was the one to include Immunet into this test but I havent talk with Orlando