G-Data 2015 >> Official Thread

Ha, so this is the 'Official' G Data thread?
Why would you call it 'official'?
But never mind.

Regarding G Data false positives -
Regarding engine A false positives -
I think I never had any engine A false positives, so I have no experience with those. As engine A is the Bitdefender engine, the primary responsibility will lie with Bitdefender, but if you report false positives to G Data SecurityLabs (Sample Submission and/or URL Submission), G Data can whitelist the concerning files and/or download links.

Regarding engine B false positives -
Engine B is G Data's own engine. Since last year, G Data has a new and strict policy on adware, and marks adware supported installers (think of Open Candy supported installers, and other adware supported installers) as "Virus" and blocks those installers from downloading, accessing and executing. This is because less experienced users are often not able to handle adware supported installers without installing the adware to their computers. Because of that, G Data thinks it needs to 'protect' all users from downloading, accessing and executing adware supported installers. I have told G Data that it's mad to block adware supported installers for all users and even mark it as "Virus". Well, I was a lot more diplomatic, and I spend months of corresponding, but long story short was that G Data sticks with the new 'block all adware as Virus' policy. (However, perhaps G Data's adware handling policy may be more subtle and user friendly with the next G Data software series, spring/summer this year, nothing is certain.)

Regarding the fact that G Data real-time protection alerts don't offer an option "Ignore" -
That is true, and I think that is quite annoying. But there is the option "Quarantine". You can choose to quarantine the file that G Data detects as infected (adware supported installers, for instance), then make a (temporary) modification in the G Data real-time protection settings, and put back your file from quarantine.
About those real-time protection settings, you can access those through the G Data user interface, Settings, AntiVirus, Real-time protection. Under "Advanced" you can (temporary, or even permanently, if you want) disable "Check for dialers / spyware / adware / riskware". Now you are free to download, save, access and execute adware supported installers without those being blocked by G Data's adware blocking policy.
I think this is definitely not an ideal solution, but it's what you can do with the current version. (As I said, perhaps G Data's adware handling policy may be more subtle and user friendly with the next G Data software series, spring/summer this year, but as I said, nothing is certain.)

 

Wrong, those detections that I got have no adware, additionally, how can an ISO file which only contains an image to burn a boot image of ACTIVE@ UNDELETE's boot cd, be detected as adware or a virus?

Secondly, I undrstand that there is a way around the detections but that's way too many steps for a detection that shouldn't have happened in the first place. I am glad that they detect PUPs and adware stuff and I know every AV will have an FP every once I a while but those FPs that I got are beyond any acceptable explanation.

I initially bought it due to recommendations on this forum about how it has improved I don't know how anyone can use that AV with those kind of FP it's even worse than the FP king Emsisoft Anti-Malware which has given me the most FPs ever recently when I tried it.

PS: the thread title of this thread makes no sense. What is it with people putting "official" next to any thread?! What makes it official? Meaningless

 

Stupendous Man is right, the false positives are from engine A (Bitdefender), it isnt that big deal. About G Data Engine B, it is good to see that it is more agressive against adware/pups, I know that Cyberlink has offered toolbars with its apps.

 

It didn't have any toolbars bro, it's a paid app media espresso for converting video files and also it was detected and labeled virus not risk ware or adware

 

Hi Mortal Raptor,
I wasn't addressing the specific false positives you had, but I was addressing G Data false positives in general.

Regarding the false positives you experienced, the two Engine A false positives concern the Bitdefender engine, and are essentially Bitdefender's fault. I guess Bitdefender users will see the same false positives. As G Data user you can submit those to G Data SecurityLabs for whitelisting.

Regarding the two Engine B detections of the Cyberlink MediaEspresso, saying it has Conduit adware, I can't say anything about that. If you are sure it has no adware supported installer of some kind, then it must be a G Data engine B false positive, and you can submit it to G Data SecurityLabs for whitelisting.

Mention this - I don't say those things, and labeling each detection as "Virus", is not annoying. It definitely is. And G Data SecurityLabs can be quite stubborn, I haven't been able to make them see that labeling each and any detection as "Virus" is bad, or at least confusing. But if users stop submitting false positives to G Data SecurityLabs, or otherwise contact G Data, things won't get any better.

You're sure right about that
That's why I wrote, "Ha, so this is the 'Official' G Data thread? Why would you call it 'official'?"
But that was Frank the Perv's doing, of course, not mine.

 

Ok, fine, nevermind that.

Where the hell have you been Stupendous? I've been waiting for you. My experience with G-Data -- I've had none of those issues. It's been a really easy, nice and comprehensive product. But I know you have dealt with G-Data on issues. And with Immoral Raptor trying to denigrate the product, we need more voices of experience and reason here.

What makes it official? I do. When you have enough clout, enough mojo.. here around Wilders, you are allowed to establish Official Threads. It actually makes perfect sense. And it's very meaningful. Thank you.

No, I'm pretty sure you Stupendous, told me to name it "Official." I completely absolve myself of any responsibility and completely blame Stupendous.

Thank you,

-Frank

 

About false positives. Of course GData is going to detect it when you try to submit it using the web form. There is a simple way to submit false positives through GData's quarantine. So please, before you go around posting that a program is garbage, learn to use the program.

It's simple, submit it and be done with it. It's not like these were system files that were falsely detected. I do not know of any antivirus that has never had a false positive.

See attached.

 

I have found an original GDATA installation CD from the late 1990's, perhaps early 2000's. When the engine was Kaspersky+ReliableAV (RAV). I should try to compile it into an EXE, and we can mess with it. It had some pretty advanced heuristics back then, I wonder if it would actually detect anything at all today?

The interface was fantastic.

 

See the attached image to learn where the exception option is. The help file is quite useful.

 

I was right here. I always am. Didn't you notice?
Regarding issues, I don't have a lot, but I did have some.
I had a series of BankGuard false positives, until G Data fixed that in a new version. And I experienced G Data engine B detections for several installers, until I found out it was G Data's new policy to block all adware supported installers. I can live with that, although I hope they can think of a more subtle and user friendly approach with the next G Data software series, spring/summer this year. What I still think is stupid is labeling each and any detection as "Virus" even when it only concerns adware supported installers and such. That too could be more subtle, of course. Perhaps with the next G Data software series? We'll see.
Apart from that, no real issues.
I choose G Data for it's stable good detection according to both Virus Bulletin and AV-TEST reports.

Did I? Oops, I must've forgotten. Thanks for reminding.

 

Thanks, Charyb.
I never noticed.
That's a much easier way than the way I used before to report false positives.
Thanks again.

 

Yes, that's where to make an exclusion for a drive, a directory, a file, or a file type.
I mentioned the option "Advanced", where one can temporary (or even permanently) disable "Check for dialers / spyware / adware / riskware", if the only issue is that you need to download, save, access or execute some adware supported installer without it being blocked by G Data's adware blocking policy. For a 'quick & dirty' temporary solution I find this approach easier than setting an exclusion in "Exceptions", but that may be a matter of personal taste.

 

Some folks want a prefect AV,I just want one that works for me...G-Data IS... running on a 9 yr old Dell Inspiron E1505,windows Vista...No problems to jaw/jack about.

 

I am very pleased with g-data total security 2015

 

Very well spoken.Its working very good

 

@Mortal Raptor
I cannot tell anything about the Engine A detections, but from my experience the adware detections from Engine B are not false positives. It's actually a legit adware detection deep inside some DivX Codec installer which comes with Cyberlink.
You should have clicked on the plus sign to see which files are actually detected inside this package.

C:\Users\John\AppData\Local\Temp\RarSFX0\MShowEsp\Setup\Utility\DivXInstaller.exe
Status: Virus gefunden
Virus: Win32.Adware.Conduit.B
Objekt: $_OUTDIR\dist.divx.com\divx\offer\conduit\checktbexist.exe

C:\Users\test\AppData\Local\Temp\RarSFX0\MShowEsp\Setup\Utility\DivXInstaller.exe
Status: Virus gefunden
Virus: Win32.Adware.Conduit.B
Objekt: $_OUTDIR\dist.divx.com\divx\offer\uniblue\driverscanner.exe​

Source: http://www.rokop-security.de/index.php?showtopic=24060&view=findpost&p=386555 (german security related forum)

 

Thank you for the clarification. It makes sense now this uniblue is a virus company I know it. Strange how none of the big sharks ever detected anything except G-Data, thatis great to be honest.

 

@Mortal Raptor Uniblue's DriverScanner is not a threat, and I use it myself. It is detected due to being "unwanted" as it gets bundled with other software.

 

G-Data picking up another award.

Best protection for online banking
"During online banking transactions, the G DATA suite offers protection even when it cannot detect the malware at all. It monitors the RAM and prevents any manipulation of the payment data. As a result, G DATA is the only company to get top marks in this regard." The testers added: "It is ideal for when you are on the move or network coverage is poor: Even without an internet connection, the security software reliably detected almost all of the malware and provided the PC with exemplary protection" – that was the conclusion of Computer Bild in the recent comparison test of eight security solutions.

Test details:
Number of security solutions tested: eight, including G DATA INTERNET SECURITY – Computer Bild comparison test mark: "Good".

Total number of malware instances in test: over 180,000
Conducted by: Computer Bild in collaboration with AV-Test and AV-Comparatives​

Good Job G-Data.

Working with the independent test laboratories AV-Test and AV-Comparatives, the testers let over 180,000 malware instances loose on the eight security packages. The result: G DATA INTERNET SECURITY is the uncontested number one in online banking protection.​

I have not noticed AV-T & AV-C collaborating in past tests. It would be interesting to know how that worked. Maybe Andreas (AV-C) can stop by and tell us.

http://www.virtual-strategy.com/2015/02/09/g-data-offers-best-protection-online-banking-customers

http://www.computerworld.ro/2015/02...cea-mai-buna-protectie-pentru-online-banking/
(must translate)

-Frank

 

I think this is talking about the same test as above.

http://www.channelobserver.de/artikel/schlechte-noten-fr-Antivirus-programme-3164/
(Must translate... unless that is your language of course)

In this version, the following packages were rated as providing sufficient protection:
Kaspersky
G-Data
Norton
McAfee

..and these programs did poorly in this test.
Avira
Avast
BitDefender


-ftp

 

The security packages from Avira, Avast and BitDefender, the latter is bottom of the test would show significant weaknesses in its core range: the defense currently Coursing malicious programs. Only the solutions of overall winner Kaspersky, G-Data, Norton and McAfee are well prepared for the defense of new viruses. Good for the users: In the revised and extended test with infected USB sticks, infected web pages, e-mail, downloads or pests none of the candidates failed completely. "Only the otherwise good G Data Software, leaving the user with too many important decisions," adds tester Voss. Is exemplary in this respect Value winner was Norton Security: The software identified all malicious websites completely. Thus, the Norton anti-virus software from all the products tested had made the biggest leap to the previous year.

 

Yeah, Norton did great.

------------

From yet another source on the same test that also must be translated:

In the field of online banking particularly sensitive data when accessed by cybercriminals are at risk. When tested here disclosed nasty surprises: Avira, Bitdefender and ESET received a "poor", as they repelled too few hits. On the other hand was able to score G Data, "the online bankers without ifs and buts protects" said Voss.
​

https://www.ptext.de/nachrichten/co...men-note-mangelhaft-erkennung-aktuelle-892479


I think the G-Data Bank Guard technology is the real deal.

-----------
http://www.stern.de/digital/compute...sie-sich-vor-viren-und-trojanern-2171685.html

Kaspersky and G DATA top
In the first place the Kaspersky Internet Security 2015 for lands 59,95 €. The software detects most pests in the test, also the operation is very easy. Plus points for the many additional features, such as the Parental Control or the webcam protection.Tried malicious software to gain access to the webcam, informed the Security Suite the user immediately. Disadvantage: Without an active Internet connection Kaspersky works much less efficient - then slip nearly four percent of pests through the cracks. Other programs such as G Data were working offline significantly more efficient, there escaped a mere 0.01 percent of the more than 180,000 investigated pests.

The G Data Internet Security lands in second place: The software is a 49.95 euros ten euros cheaper than the winner. The protection performance is on par with Kaspersky, in the practical test, the program detects almost all the dangers and also secures online banking from excellent. It is the only program it receives in this field grade of 1.0. However, the program loads the system performance more on older computers, it may therefore lead to longer waiting times. It functions according to the "computer screen" somewhat cumbersome.

In third place Norton Security lands for 44,99 €. The software consumes the least PC resources, can the virus but not keep up with the leaders.

In last place is the Internet Security 2015 Bitdefender. With 59.95 euros, it is also one of the most expensive programs in the test.When anti-virus software can not score, they also slow down the PC.

Free protects only half as good
To protect yourself from Trojans, and hackers, many users rely on a free version of the well-known antivirus protection programs.According to "computer screen" but this is risky: Only a complete security package with firewall protection and extensive features sufficiently protects the PC from malware.


-ftp

 

https://threatcenter.crdf.fr/?Stats

And then there is this website.

I don't know much about the efficacy of the sites methodology.... but G-Data rates very well.

When you look at who G-Data is beating, that's pretty impressive.

Some of the results are inconsistent with other testing.

So without knowing more about the test, one might not want to weight this too much in your personal evaluation of products. It's just another data point.

Can anybody shed more light on this test?

Thanks for Marcos from ESET for the link.


1. ESET-NOD32 95 % (275 threats detected on 289).
2 Kaspersky 85 % (248 threats detected on 289).
3 GData 84 % (245 threats detected on 289).
4 Emsisoft 83 % (241 threats detected on 289).
5 McAfee-GW-Edition 83 % (240 threats detected on 289).
6 Avira 82 % (239 threats detected on 289).
7 McAfee 81 % (236 threats detected on 289).
8 BitDefender 81 % (235 threats detected on 289).
9 Ad-Aware 80 % (234 threats detected on 289).
10 MicroWorld-eScan 79 % (230 threats detected on 289).
11 Avast 79 % (229 threats detected on 289).
12 Sophos 78 % (226 threats detected on 289).
13 DrWeb 76 % (222 threats detected on 289).
14 F-Secure 75 % (218 threats detected on 289).
15 AVG 75 % (217 threats detected on 289).
16 TrendMicro-HouseCall 73 % (213 threats detected on 289).
17 Ikarus 73 % (212 threats detected on 289).
18 Baidu-International 73 % (212 threats detected on 289).
19 Qihoo-360 72 % (209 threats detected on 289).
20 Malwarebytes 69 % (202 threats detected on 289).
21 Fortinet 68 % (199 threats detected on 289).
22 K7GW 67 % (194 threats detected on 289).
23 K7AntiVirus 64 % (186 threats detected on 289).
24 VIPRE 63 % (183 threats detected on 289).
25 ALYac 61 % (179 threats detected on 289).
26 Norman 60 % (176 threats detected on 289).
27 Symantec 57 % (166 threats detected on 289).
28 AVware 55 % (159 threats detected on 289).
29 Cyren 53 % (154 threats detected on 289).
30 TrendMicro 48 % (141 threats detected on 289).
31 NANO-Antivirus 48 % (140 threats detected on 289).
32 AhnLab-V3 48 % (139 threats detected on 289).
33 Comodo 47 % (136 threats detected on 289).
..............

 

More interesting if you scroll down and look at the average all time table.

 

Well the BitDefender engine would be a problem to me... Everytime I used BD, I got FPs.