AV-Comparatives: Real World Protection Test February 2016

AV-Comparatives: Real World Protection Test February 2016

http://chart.av-comparatives.org/chart1.php?chart=chart2&year=2016&month=2&sort=1&zoom=3

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

---------------------------
1. A great improvement for ThreatTrack Vipre, the usual results for the rest.
2. Microsoft Security Essentials 4.8 is in the test list now.

 

VIPRE Antivirus Comparison:
http://www.vipreantivirus.com/home-antivirus.aspx

AVG doing quite well lately.

 

Why do they use the Free edition of Avast! instead of the Internet Security?

 

I believe avast! specifically requested that. Also, these products share same anti-malware engine, so there would not be any difference.

 

100% detection rate again and again? Come on now.

 

where is Panda?

 

There wouldn't be a difference in the detection test, but IIRC their RWT involves more than just detection.

 

Yeah, I've noticed that too. Hmm

 

There is nothing confusing or wrong about 100% detection on this case. They only tested about 394 "widely spread" malware, downloading from their original links. 100% is quite achievable here.

 

Yes nothing wrong with the test itself. Big mistake when the test was called "Real World Test". "Widely Spread" is not equal to "Real World", unfortunately. Maybe they should change the name of the test.
The real "real world test" would be at least to expose the test computer to the darkest corner of the Internet for 6-12 months - download and run any suspicious email attachments; download and run any suspicious installers they could find, etc, then see how the detection rate looks like. That's called "real world test". Otherwise, it's confusing and misleading.

 

The name can be changed to something else like total protection or something similar, still 394 is probably quite more from what an average user would encounter (especially barring adware as it is the case with this test) in regular use.
P.S. I would still like more samples and addition of greyware.

 

Yeesh, I just dropped F-Secure for Webroot out of boredom, I might just have to switch back. I do love me some Webroot though...

 

What happened to the Microsoft Security Essentials baseline?

Never Mind, I missed the Microsoft bar.

 

Emsisoft with 3.5% user dependant

 

Surprised by Vipre.

 

The 'inevitable' Kaspersky...

 

If they would add a ramsomware protection then you would have something.

 

Well done AVG, Sophos and McAfee could be better ...

 

For all the hype avast gives to their AV regarding Nx, DeepScreen, Evo-Gen, etc, it doesn't look like it's helping much.

 

... but it has more shields than any other AV.

 

Yeah that was a bit surprising. I suspect It may have something to do with the "Exploit Protection"/dropper blocker in EMIS 11.

The Behavior Blocker in EMIS protects against unknown executables performing potentially malicious actions by alerting the user and giving them the option to allow, block, or quarantine the executable.

In any event, I believe that though labled as "User Dependant" the warning choice box will typically recommended taking action to block/quarantine it,which is the proper option unless the user knows the exe. to be OK.

 

Why is Eset's score so low ? Not for the first time. I like it, but this ...

 

Ransomware Protection is included since their 2013 or 2014 series.

Theyre currently working on reducing the user dependent alerts.

 

As always, AVC graphs are exaggerated. I wouldn't call 97% score "low."

That said, AVC didn't give a lot of details as to what "a miss" is. Was it a compromised system or was it a failure to detect the malicious download or URL by Eset's browser protection?