AV-Comparatives: Real-World Protection Test August 2015

If it was 0-day malware as this test was said to be, there would be no signatures. If there are signatures, then the malware is not 0-day ..........................

 

@sg09 As far as I can recall, Quick Heal has always performed badly in testing. I presume (hope) it does quite well at detecting local Indian malware.

 

When the AV companies have sufficient time to make their products perform better than Windows 10 Defender well enough to market buying those products instead.

 

So if I'm correct, my anti-virus (Panda Free AV) did great!

 

Nope down here in India.Every second machine with quickheal is infected with ton of crap like USB infections and file infectors.QK rarely ever protects.There is no such thing as "local malware" in my opinion.

 

@roger_m I was being sarcastic. What @true indian said is the real fact, but QH guys are very good at advertising and tying up with resellers that common users, institutes, offices always buy and renew their licenses. Their only 'proper' catch line is VB100 certification, which they proudly advertise in their product boxes, websites (see the bottom right of their site), but most of us here know how flawed is VB100 certification in todays standards.

 

Yeah they are very good marketing guys there.But the product is a utter fail.

 

@true indian That's interesting to know.

 

I also wonder if they use windows smart screen filter or not in their tests. Since windows 8 the smart screen has become system-wide, so it should be considered as another layer of protection built in windows (very effective imho)

 

Sadly, this is true. Every public place i go, if i had to insert an USB stick, most of the times it will have malware in it
Recent example (couple weeks ago), i had given my USB stick to a photographer to have a copy in it. And i could see at least 3 different types of infections all around the stick...

 

I wonder if we have a single test where this smart screen is tested along side regular contestants..

 

Have a look in previous test (Real-World Protection Test March – June 2015, the test were performed under Windows 7 Home Premium 64-bit, with updates as of 1st February 2015, PDF page 4), PDF page 7: "Comments" =
http://www.av-comparatives.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/avc_prot_2015a_en.pdf

 

Surprising showcase by Panda. I just wonder if they have fixed the broken file restoring from quarantine in Panda 2016.

 

I thought McAfee would be better.

 

Not yet; http://support.pandasecurity.com/fo...3&t=4933&sid=c806b9a9a949146842cbbd8f26d4adeb

 

Same here.
Intel should have improved this piece of crap a long time ago. Well. I do like their enterprise product, now for pure nostalgic reasons.

 

Quick Heal?
TBH, it's a lousy name for an AV product. Nowadays, the essence of an AV should be focused on "prevention", not at all "heal". "Heal" implies that the computer has to be firstly infected, then the AV will do the "healing" work.
In reality though, once infected, the system will most likely never been completely healed. It will almost doomed to end ugly.
So I say, the marketing department at QH is not good at all. They could not even get their name right.

 

Quick Heal was intended to be made as a quick-fix product to heal infections at a time when the trojan and adware era had not yet come. Quick Heal lives and dies by its marketing and the commission given to those who sell it. Technologically speaking, it remains backward as the tech team is still a skeleton crew compared to the other divisions. I had hoped that the cooperation agreement with Agnitum might have helped improve things, maybe incorporate Agnitum's engine and definitions into the QH product, but it appears that has not yet happened. For now, QH is still close to the worst anti-virus you can get in India (the worst are several other contenders, like FIRE Anti-Virus, for example).

 

Quick Heal firewall was powered by Agnitum some years back. I am unsure if they are still using the same engine. I am not sure about the AV engine though.

 

@Firecat have you got any idea how K7 security products are doing?

 

Where was it said to be?

I do not see the below in the latests reports but I have also not seen anything to suggest it has changed.

From Real-World Protection Test August-November 2010

We are not focusing on zero day exploits/malware, but on current and relevant malware that is currently out there and problematic to users.

 

On page 2 of the August report under the 'Tested Cases' paragraph, A-V Comparatives uses the wording "working exploits." Maybe they were a bit loose in using that terminology; I don't know. Exploits can be either the 0-day unpatched in-the-wild variety or ones that have been patched. In either case, it is malware specifically directed at a vulnerability.

 

Using Agnitum's SDK is not very indicative of firewall performance. AVG uses it, for example, but is worse off on nearly all metrics compared to Agnitum itself.

As for K7, false positives are still an issue. Product is about the same level of detection as MSE/Windows Defender in my experience (not that good, but not bad). I don't see K7 a lot anywhere though.

 

I would definately agree with everything said above.QK was never and will sadly never be a match for the competition.I love the fact the free AV industry is on the rise.

 

Yes, Only site that tests it is Virus Bulletin. Although they do not advertise as heavily as QH, but their products are common in eCommerce sites such as Flipkart, Amazon, Snapdeal, PayTM.