AV-Comparatives Real-World Protection Test of September 2015

http://www.av-comparatives.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/avc_factsheet2015_09.pdf

Still on windows 7, but we start to see some products under the level of the out-of-box protection

 

Interactive Chart:
http://chart.av-comparatives.org/chart1.php?chart=chart2&year=2015&month=9&sort=1&zoom=2

 

Interesting, Windows 10 out-of-box should be even higher (3 ~4 points).

 

Shh, keep your voice down
http://chart.av-comparatives.org/chart1.php?chart=chart2&year=2015&month=9&sort=1&zoom=0

 

File Detection Test September 2015
Windows 10 out-of-box = 91.4 points
http://chart.av-comparatives.org/chart1.php?chart=chart1&year=2015&month=9&sort=1&zoom=3

 

Is that with Windows Defender enabled?

 

http://www.av-comparatives.org/detection-test/

https://blog.avira.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/graphicoct15.png?b7aa76
"-_ _ _ Out-of-box detection Microsoft Windows Defender: 91.4%"

Read the PDF, page 6 & 9
http://www.av-comparatives.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/avc_fdt_201509_en.pdf

 

Thanks!

I was wondering because I've seen Smart Screen Filter react to a file I opened on my Win10 machine while there was no peep out of WD.

Edit: But that actually brings up another question which I didn't see mentioned there on page 6, or 9 - was Smart Screen Filter enabled too?

 

AFAIK, the Smart Screen Filter in the browser reacts earlier than Avira (checked with EICAR test file), so I suppose that reacts earlier than WD too.

 

... And in Win 8 and higher WD covers the Desktop / system too, not just IE.

 

Nope! Not in Win8 and higher.

https://www.wilderssecurity.com/threads/mse-does-anyone-still-use-it.379323/page-5#post-2522834

https://www.wilderssecurity.com/threads/mse-does-anyone-still-use-it.379323/page-5#post-2522839

And from the experience I mentioned earlier I can say I opened a file (VoodooShield beta) in my Downloads folder (not the browser) and Smart Screen Filter reacted.

 

The other report you are referring to in that link, are a static file detection test.

It's not really showing any of the tested products in a realistic situation.

Many of the tested products will perform better in a test with samples being executed instead of just scanned, so I don't think the static test is of much value.

It's just confusing, no matter what vendor a end user might be interested in.

EDIT : Edited the quoted post, since I accidentally quoted the wrong post the first time. This post now contains the post I was actually replying to.

 

Krusty13, you are absolutely correct.

Once again, they test with SmartScreen turned off.

Ridiculous.

MSE did good, 93,1%

But it is without SmartScreen.

So actually a end user would see a even higher block rate.

As pointed out before - if the tests are to provide ANY meaningful conclusions, then ALL tested products needs to be tested equally.

This means either turn the webfilter/reputation database OFF in ALL tested products.

OR - test MSE/Windows Defender with SmartScreen turned ON.

-

It should not be difficult to produce a test that actually provides end users with meaningful results :

- Test with verified malicious links. (as they did in this test)
- Execute local samples (instead of just scanning like in the other report)
- Do test on Windows 10 x64.
- When Windows Defender are tested, then remember to have SmartScreen ENABLED.
- Rank according to prevalence.

And of course with everything, BOTH native and third-party, fully updated and with internet access available, like they did in this test.

There are not much "real world" about tests that are disabling features that would be enabled in every end users setup in the real world.

 

I agree. In other test thread ( https://www.wilderssecurity.com/threads/dtl-home-anti-virus-protection-annual-report-2015.380485/ ) they've tested AVs without updates installed. IMO, those non-default setups don't represent good test environments and results should be taken with grain of salt.

 

Wow! Panda blocked 100% from April to September!

 

never forget to look also at FP rates.

 

Unless FP's are on boot system files, they are irrelevant and just a minor inconvenience. I rather have a false positive here and there and no missed malware than zero false positives and bunch of stuff missed all the time.

 

This post looks a little out of context because the post I replied to has been removed. It basically said that Smart Screen Filter only protected the browser. That's why I started my post with "Nope".

Anyway, my point is still valid.

 

Are you still using Avast? Wondering if you are still maintaining a optimized configuration file.

 

I am. Waiting for avast! 2016 to go final. I'll release a new one for that version.

 

Please double check the link I've posted, it's the same real-world test we are discussing in this thread, just the whole 0-100% zoom view for better understanding of the Windows Defender improvements

 

Sorry, Macstorm !!

I hit "reply" on the wrong post yesterday.
My reply in that post was not a reply to your post of course.
It was a reply to the post after yours.
I must have been low on coffee yesterday.

I have edited the post so it now quotes the correct post.

Again, sorry about the mistake Macstorm.

 

Avira has definitely gotten their game on for some time now. Wish I knew how well the freebie antivirus would fare in these tests compared to the Pro version. Thinking of switching from BD free to Avira since I have serious reservations that BD free is still being updated as a product.

 

Both versions use the same engine, xVDF and APC
https://www.wilderssecurity.com/threads/avira.345492/page-153#post-2533938

 

There is also a difference in definition update frequency.