AV-Comparatives: Real-World Protection Test - March 2016

AV-Comparatives: Real-World Protection Test - March 2016

http://chart.av-comparatives.org/chart1.php?chart=chart2&year=2016&month=3&sort=1&zoom=3

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

 

Kaspersky slipped on this test.

 

Kaspersky

 

Shiver me timbers!

And when Trend takes care of FP's...solid option.

 

...yeah, less than 100% is totally unacceptable

 

I'm surprised by Emsisoft's high FP amount. They usually don't have a problem with so many false positives.

 

I just got around to noticing that with the February Real-World, Lavasoft's "free Bitdefender engine" Antivirus+ has finally been abandoned in favor of their Pro Security product, though it looks as if their internals could use some tweaking.

Pro implements BD's major SDKs (BDCore/B-HAV, AVC and firewall/IDS). And it looks like its own Ad-Aware engine doesn't seem to contribute much in this class of testing.

 

I think you're injecting a bit of humor into the discussion?

I know you're surely aware of it, but this is an otherwise good excuse to remind everyone of AVC's own disclaimer: 100% "…does not mean…these…will always protect against all threats on the Web."

As well, it could be argued most of these scores fall well into the good old "margin of error."

 

Where's Panda? Something happened?

 

Avira stronger than ever....avast slipped even further lol

 

https://www.wilderssecurity.com/thre...real-time-threat-list-rttl-march-2016.385187/

 

Dependable F-secure

 

Dependable [Bitdefender] F-Secure....

 

F-Secure has a very good home-made component called DeepGuard

 

F-Secure has been the most dependable, consistent AV for me, for the past few years. I went to ESET, Webroot, Norton, tried out Avira, keep going back to F-Secure. It's light as can be, saw no false positives with it (granted, I don't go hunting to test my AV), kept things nice and easy. All of Bitdefender's protection (coupled with their own Deepguard), without the buggines of running BD's software.

 

I don't remember Kaspersky finishing behind eScan, Vipre, AVG, and ESET.
This hasn't been the pattern...
Unless, you remember something different...

 

Exactly, Deepgurard is awesome.
Its this layer above bit defender engine that makes it so powerful against 0 day malware. Its not perfect and you do get FP (personally I never encountered one).
Best part is that its very clean. I installed it on my parents computer because it offers top notch protection without any confusing settings. UI is very simple too.


Lastly, I miss Norton in these tests.

 

Agreed. When I used F-secure, I tried out running some malware in a Virtual machine that has F-secure installed in it. F-secure may not be able to block the exe file via signature based detection, it successfully blocked the action of those malware when I tried to run them. However, the price tag is a bit high, so I went to Avira nowadays.

 

I may stand to be corrected, but I don't think F-Secure implements BD's Active Virus Control SDK. Or their Nimbus cloud scanning and filtering services.

Check to see if you have avcuf32.dll and avcuf64.dll. If not, you are not getting "all of Bitdefender's protection."

There is considerably more to BD Internet Security than the decade-oldie but still goodie BDCore and B-HAV scanners known as the "Bitdefender engine." And BD's cloud is among the best there be.

Which just goes to show how rockin' F-Secure is.

I had strongly considered F-Secure as the only other choice recently. But I snagged a 3-PC 1 year license for $20 which I can extend in June the free six month non-bugginess BDIS trial I'm running now on my desktop (and replace MSE/WFW on the laptop). Money talks. Though next year I'll be shopping again.

 

You know what I did there , no one should expect to see 100% all the time, even if Kaspersky indeed has showed 100% in the tests for a long time, till now.

 

Do you mean Ad-Aware Free doesn't use Bitdefender engine any more?

Well done AVG, it's better than Avast with all the ridiculous shields and modules.

Sophos is somewhat disappointing ...

 

Falling behind eScan, Vipre, AVG, and ESET
is the issue for me; not the less-than-100% result!!!
Clear enough? I hope so.

 

hahaha Those selfish fanboys. Is just a joke.

You need a better dose of AV-Comparatives:

http://www.av-comparatives.org/images/stories/test/statistics/somestats.pdf

 

Why do you see that as an "issue" exactly ?

To NOT fall behind the vendors you mention, it means that they too would have needed to get a lower score in order for Kaspersky to stay above them. Do you expect other vendors to get a lower score only because another vendor (Kaspersky) gets a lower score ?

To be honest. I thought you were joking and being a bit sarcastic with your first post which was the only reason I responded to it. But it seems you were rather serious, my mistake I guess.

 

[QAvast did very well again!UOTE="anon, post: 2580954, member: 131962"]AV-Comparatives: Real-World Protection Test - March 2016

http://chart.av-comparatives.org/chart1.php?chart=chart2&year=2016&month=3&sort=1&zoom=3

http://www.av-comparatives.org/dynamic-tests/[/QUOTE]