AV-Comparatives: Real-World Protection Test Jul-Aug 2019

AV-Comparatives: Real-World Protection Test Jul-Aug 2019

Chart:
https://www.av-comparatives.org/com...chart_month=Jul-Aug&chart_sort=1&chart_zoom=2

PDF:
https://www.av-comparatives.org/tests/real-world-protection-test-jul-aug-2019-factsheet/

 

As usual, Microsoft Windows Defender: False Positives = 39...……

Kaspersky: Blocked 99.1% …...
F-Secure: Blocked 98.6% / FP: 17…...

 

Looks like Bitdefender is the only perfect score. I may have to give it a run to see how it is these days.

 

Too bad Eset scores that bad , i hope they wi’ll get on top again!!

 

Bitdefender, Avira and Symantec got 100% with zero or little FPs.

 

Very disappointed with F-Secure results, not the false positives those I can deal with but the protection rate is towards the end of the chart like ESET

 

Also with a FP rate >10%, I really believe that the block-at-first-sight probability threshold has been cranked up to 90% from the default 80% setting.

 

Good enough for me.

 

Feb-May test: Kaspersky = 1st
Jul-Aug test: Kaspersky = 12th

 

The 2020 version is vastly improved but still has some classic BitDefender bugs, unfortunately.

 

... and 1st again next time.

 

The new 2020 version is receiving a lot of positive feedback. It's a lot less buggy than previous versions, but a minority of people (myself included) have still found it to be buggy. One issue with it these days, is that they are a bit slow to add signatures for new threats.

A score of 98.3% is decent and ESET is almost always one of the first antiviruses to add signatures for new threats. Also, you can tweak ESET to give better proactive protection, while still remaining very light.
https://malwaretips.com/threads/configure-eset-antivirus-for-maximum-security-by-roboman.86348/

 

F-secure always seems to score high Fp but That hasn't been my experience with it. I had one Fp with f-secure and it was fixed the same day. I have yet to see a single fp from defender. Last time I used Norton it was almost all FP when it flagged everything it didn't know as malicious.

 

FPs due to the download insight?

 

Yup is it still as aggressive as it used to be?

 

Don't know. I haven't used Norton in a long while.

 

Woohoo Microsoft Windows Defender 100 % (don't care about the FP)

 

that % is solely dependent on how many PUPs they throw at the AVs.

 

Is this test with the Windows Defender anti ransomware enabled? Mine says "No action needed" but when I go to the 'Manage Ransomware Protection' the 'Controlled folder access' is not enabled. So I'm not sure if mine's running or not. But anyway, was the test with the 'Controlled folder access' enabled?

 

No its not aggressive anymore, very light and awesome detection rate.

 

Microsoft blocked 100 % - good enough for me.

 

no, microsoft blocked 230%

 

No, Microsoft blocked MORE than 100% because it blocked a lot of stuff that was not malware. Thus, Microsoft blocked 100% malware plus, say, *10%* NON-malware = 110% effectiveness.

In fact, that way-too-high FP rate isn't "effectiveness" -- it's better defined as "grossly misleading AV tactics".

 

Don't want to give any ideas to lurking potential malware authors, but considering Windows Defender loses a lot of it's effectiveness in the absence of an internet connection, there is quite a real scenario here.

 

Unless the AV lab finds and uses a downloadable malware sample that disables the network connection, it will never be shown that this is a real and know occurrence.