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

http://chart.av-comparatives.org/chart1.php?chart=chart2&year=2017&month=11&sort=1&zoom=4

 

You go, Microsoft but I'll keep watching and tweaking seeing these comparatives are mainly a kaffeeklatsch (as far as I'm concerned).

Adaware, hmmm. (I'm looking due north)

Edit: Just caught Symantec's CEO on national news talking about software security and home device network safety. Nice timing.

 

Nice to see Emsisoft doing well.

 

A new "B" on the block...Bullguard instead of Bitdefender.

 

ESET getting worse and worse.......

 

I'll stick with tried and true, My paid sub. of BD

 

Hi NiteRanger,

Am I seeing things not right? (which could very well be possible!!).

ESET:

Oct:
blocked 98,4 %
compromised 1,6 %
false positives 0

Nov:
blocked 98,9 %
compromised 0,8 %
user dependent 0,3 %
false positives 0

That looks to me as a bit better score in Nov than in Oct.
BTW: I guess that "user dependent" points to PUA. (PUA detection being not on by default, and AV-C is testing with default settings).

 

But as far as I know, it has the BitDefender engine!

 

If I speculate I would say it's a zoom level that's causing confusion. Setting it to 0-100% shows "right" comparison. Most AVs perform with similar score and IMO negligible difference in detection.

 

regardless, all AVs are tested with default settings not just ESET so it's very disappointing that they are always towards the worst contenders in that list. It makes it hard for me to recommend when I show people these kinda results. All other AVs were tested using default settings so that's not an excuse.

@Marcos

 

I often have a temptation to make a contest in our forum and give a prize to those who have got infected with the latest version of ESET installed provided that no protection features were disabled, the product was not misconfigured and the OS had all security patches installed and all user accounts had a strong password set to prevent attackers from remoting in via RDP and disabling the antivirus.
I wonder if there is anybody in this forum who got infected in spite of that.

 

you are 100% right, I never got infected in the past 10 years that I've been using NOD32. I guess I should just shut up now. Thanks

 

Never got infected when I used Eset, other AVs or no AV at all. To me it just means that safe computing can go a long way.

 

Exactly, I have it installed on my mom's laptop, no infections in the 5 years she's been using it.

 

I struggle sometimes to understand what people mean when they say they've had no infections in x amount of time with whatever anti-malware product they're using. I have raised this before but I think we need to be clear on what is meant by having experienced no infections. Do we mean the product, whichever one it is, has alerted the user to a possible infection, therefore, preventing it, or the product has not given any alerts during normal use leading to the assumption one is not infected?

For example, I routinely scan with a number of products but none ever alert to anything on my machine; I could say I've not been infected not because of the AV of choice being used but more to do with what I do online.

 

I fully agree with you, the last time I was infected with a virus was with Windows 98! Since then nothing not even a alert. That's why since 2-3 years now I am not using any AV, just VS and AppGuard. Scanning from time to time with HitmanPro.

 

Avira continues to impress negatively = Position: 12th out of 21 products.

 

I have not seen much on Bullguard, seems to be seldom talked about but looks like the new king, I am going to have to research this product a bit more.

 

I also agree with your thoughts, being clean for years doesn't necessarily mean the AV in use is doing a great job. It depends on the internet environment, I've had dangerous situations whereby the AVs I used were definitely catching a lot of viruses, and some AVs were better than others. It is also true that most AVs nowadays are doing a good job, although I would steer away from the ones with lots of false positives...

 

+1

 

AV-Comparatives: Real-World Protection Test: July - November 2017

http://chart.av-comparatives.org/chart1.php?chart=chart2&year=2017&month=Jul_Nov&sort=1&zoom=2

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

 

Microsoft with 48 FP is not good for average Joe, operating system could be dead. Great results for other free AV except disappointing Adaware.

 

FP-Secure: 132 FP !!!

 

you guys should bare in mind these tests are done with absolute default settings.
hence kaspersky having that infected rate, PUP is considered infected and PUP detection is disabled by default.
the top5 on this test just shows that the tests were done with old samples just so a few AV has a chance.
panda on 100% come on now.