AV-Comparatives: Real-World Protection Test - April 2017

AV-Comparatives: Real-World Protection Test - April 2017

https://chart.av-comparatives.org/chart1.php# (not yet available)

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

 

It looks like it's up now.

 

I wish the user dependent score of emsisoft comes down a lot. I know i know it gives a popup and the recommended option is highlighted and all that , but the rest are managing fine without user dependency

 

Emsisoft let .4% slip through -- very unusal for Emsisoft to miss anything

But: 1 FP -- unusually low.

Low FPs have consequences I guess.

Also looks like that if The NSA trusted Kaspersky their crown jewels might be more secure.

KIS is so awesomely consistent.

 

I wonder why Adaware is so underrated, even if it performs so well

 

Feb = 95.8%
March = 97.6%

 

last time i tried it long long time ago , it was very heavy.

 

Good results again from Microsoft and unfortunately the first really "bad" result from Emsisoft.

 

Adaware, Fortinet, and Panda.

 

Panda is performing quite well lately, 3 x 100% in 2017

Regarding Windows Defender I think their improvement won't stop here, the more users they have the better will become, all this tests results will increase their user base.

I can't wait to see the performance test

 

@IBK

What about this?

https://www.wilderssecurity.com/thr...rogramme-q-1-201-7.393921/page-4#post-2675582

Can you test 2 scenarios for windows defender? or at least the real one, remember the name of your test:
REAL-WORLD protection test

Windows Defender + Block at first sight (default settings) + UAC + SmartScreen - "special scenario"

 

In this test MSE was tested on Windows 7. WD on Windows 10 would probably get similar (or even better) results.

 

Most everyone did very well this time. A little surprised to see Avira below others, but there were some 100% marks this time to compete with. I personally am happy with BitDefender on my computer.

 

Yes, probably and in addition since Microsoft implemented the cloud in their security solution I guess it won't make any difference if you use smart screen or not since all the security layers are based probably in the same cloud or these are synced in real time

SS is probably just another way to Microsoft to collect unknown files but with similar detection than the av

 

I wonder if Win SmartScreen was disabled and if cloud protection was enabled. Funny that no-one even asked about this, probably because WD's results were quite good.

 

Because everyone already knows the answer, this was already discussed.

But yes, I still want to see a test where native Windows 10 security is tested.


Ps: There's no need to get personal about this.
Ps2: I always take this tests with a grain of salt, look at the number of products doing 100 %, yet there are still many users getting infected every day.

 

Maybe it's because this test was done on Windows 7

 

Probably the same result now SS and WD are in the same cloud component. Probably SS now behaves just as a way for ms to get unknown files feed in their cloud

 

How so? Windows Defender in Windows 10 that has "block at first sight" technology if default settings are enabled, this test was done at Windows 7.

That Whitepaper that you read describe "block at first sight" technology, SmartScreen isnt the same technology, one is the fast response using cloud (machine learning), the other is sort of whitelist and Application Reputation.


https://docs.microsoft.com/pt-br/wi...ock-at-first-sight-windows-defender-antivirus

 

SS is basically an expended "web filter" of Windows which also works on local files, so if you disable it, other products should have their web filter disabled as well.

 

CrowdStrike does not match what they advertise in terms of results:

 

Indeed better than some big names, some FPs but a reasonable number...

 

SS is based on the same cloud so probably the detections are the same the difference is that SS will stop it before downloading but this won't make any difference in a test if WD detect it once downloaded.

 

SS is part of the same cloud but just focused on the browser, SS has nothing locally to detect malware it relies on the same cloud.
It's like most of the AVs but people loves marketing and installing more crap. Or do you really believe that if a web module blocks a web or a file the AV won't have that detection already? If the web is bad is because in advance their spider has scanned it get the files determine they are bad an created the definitions and in addition block the web

 

i think you missed that:

SS is the only way for Windows to block them, WD can't because it has to wait the file to be in the system , while other solutions may have web-based threats protections.