AV-Comparatives: Malware Protection Test - March 2018 http://chart.av-comparatives.org/chart1.php?chart=chart9&year=2018&month=3&sort=1&zoom=4 https://www.av-comparatives.org/malware-protection-test/
This is really surprising, considering that I see pretty much zero false positives from Panda myself.
Yes, FPS are higher than in Real-World protection test. Maybe testing procedure (offline / online) has something to do with it?
The list of programs/packages that were marked as FPs during this test can be found on this page. I've got to say I've never heard of or even used most of those. If you don't use any of those programs, you wouldn't get a FP alert at the time of the test. The other thing to remember is by the time the report is published, all these should be fixed as my understanding is these FPs are reported to the vendors that flagged them at the time of the test.
the only AV test I cared about was the one that showed how they all phone home url's visited. AV is spyware
oh no they dare to use their cloud for their web modules, how dare they! keep your fud ******* to yourself please
You beat me to it lol. Jesus, Some people would be better off with a library card and a PlayBoy magazine than an internet facing computer.
Yup, that's the price you pay. I believe that only Emsisoft has denied spying on browsing activity. But what the hell is going on with Panda, so many FP's.
I am not surprised. Most of the cloud-dependent products with next to nothing in terms of local logic have scored poorly on this test in terms of FPs (Symantec, Panda, Trend Micro). This is a known characteristic of a product/company that is overly dependent on the cloud and has set up it's security in "Blackguard mode" because they do not have the resources to properly maintain a database/signature repository as well as appropriate whitelists (in such cases, whitelists are adjusted based on reputation and analytics..). Since the number of dedicated staff to handle this are less, you should be worried about whether the companies are really putting the effort into your protection that you deserve. I wouldn't use these products, but YMMV.
Wow Avast improved alot huh. Well the dev of Defensewall joined. It merged with AVG. AVG had teams from Ewido, the BB maker and Norman right? A lot more smart minds now comprise Avast. No wonder. @Firecat i believe this smart url web blocking mech or powered by cloud (collective intel by snooping other vendors and public sources haha) is also used by some AVs for detection. Think Ikarus, Fortinet, Avast (Malware.gen), Webroot and even MS (detection!cl) MS improved too! Well since 2017 theyve been making baby steps and perhaps activating those monitors that were previously passive and now active using the data they collected for years? Just more tweaks perhaps? @roger_m i love panda too. Its very light but sometimes I suspect its the cause of some issues on the machine. Their support is quite slacking, unreliable and quiet. I noticed quite more FPs by it during execution of PE recently. But the wonderful thing is response time to FPs seems to have improved. FP was fixed the next day eventhough they didnt reply haha. It was auto restored which was impressive, convenient and quite creepy haha. Avast too made it convenient to submit FPs but theyre not quite fast at fixing. Takes some days.
Cloud should be an addition to a smart, self-learning, good database that has local logic and can be enhanced by the cloud. The cloud is worthless if there is no local logic. It's like building a network without a CPU/brain. All of the products you mentioned use a complementary approach w.r.t. signatures, generics, behavioural and cloud. The exception is Webroot, which is also a questionable product - though obviously Webroot puts more effort in their products than Panda or Symantec. Purely cloud based solutions have several limitations that render them unreliable at many points of time. A good example of a product regression is McAfee, going from good to average with a new "enhanced" cloud-based engine....
Thanks for your insight, and I completely agree! If you can only get good results with the cloud enabled it's not impressive to me at all. BTW, what's also funny to me is that nobody is talking anymore about SmartScreen like they did when Win Defender didn't perform too well.
