AV-Comparatives: Malware Protection Test - September 2017 http://chart.av-comparatives.org/chart1.php?chart=chart9&year=2017&month=9&sort=1&zoom=4 https://www.av-comparatives.org/malware-protection-test/
Looks like everyone did petty good on detection. Apparently false positives are the greatest evil now. Not to be taken lightly, as they have resulted in more than one trashed machine for me over the years.
They're getting up there in PC Matic "territory." On that regard, Symantec still has a way to go to match PC Matic's score of 800+ FPs: https://www.av-comparatives.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/avc_sp_pcpitstop_201702_en.pdf As PC Matic's TV ads note, they do score 100% detection rates across the board.
As far as I am concerned, this is the "where the rubber meets the road" test as far AV-C tests go. And as usual, Windows Defender scored dead last.
The problem with Symantec and the false positives is that anything that is not recognized is classified as a threat. It's the reason we can't use it at work. As soon as the programmers make a .exe file it gets deleted.
Symantec has taken shortcuts with respect to protection for years now with a purportedly "world class" cloud based Antimalware engine. They basically fired a lot of their analysts many years ago and adopted some machine learning based cloud - they are very horrible for signature based detection nowadays. Here's the deal: The people who made the blacklists are also the people who know how to make whitelists, so that's the reason Norton has so many FPs. I do not trust Norton at all as a security product, it's more of a blackguard model to security - a walled garden if you might so say. I can see Wilders has a fairly large thread dedicated to this product, but putting your hopes on Symantec's (or McAfee) cloud based engine is a sure fire recipe for failure due to FPs, if not due to actual malware.....
It appears BullGuard's new behiavoural detection engine actually works - this time registering a marginally better score than BD itself.
Do you have a source?! I ask because the results from av-c are with an older version of bullguard IS. I'm waiting for some test results with the behavior blocker "sentry".
Thanks for your insight, it was interesting to read. BTW, I noticed that Win Defender performed worse in this test, when compared to the "Real-World Protection Test", what is the difference?
sadly nortons been heading this way for a while now. basically if it doesnt specifically know what the file is then its blocked and classified as so. time to give it up and move along or look back to when they really had an awesome program. to many are trying to become way to automated. otherwise results are pretty much what i expected to see this time around
I couldn't have said it better myself Firecat. If others have disinfected as many computers as I have that were running different versions of Norton, you might feel the same way.
