By all accounts it appears that Bitdefender is kicking proverbial booty. Hope those stats also apply to the feebie version since that's what I'm currently sporting. @Thankflul. I'm thankful for you're informative post.
trend micro is like having nothing on your computer and Fsecure and Norton may trash your computer thinking they are protecting you.... Nicely done Bitdefender and AVg VAsst
Surprised to see that many Kaspersky false positives. Overall (all products) it looks like these results aren't the greatest I have seen.
did you see the result ...how many false alarms you will get from fsecure ? this is some back up evidence i guess
Not everyone will have the same experience though. For example, Panda usually has plenty of false positives when tested, but when I was using it, I saw very few false positives. That was despite regularly downloading little known and new software.
Wow, a whole TEN false positives. Holy crap I take it all back! Oh no, wait, that's still an absolutely ridiculous take.
It is not because that number doesnt mean anything without context, for example, how prevalent is the software marked as malware? How many users from "X" antivirus solution actually using it ? Without those info those false alarms numbers are meaningless. So in my book F-Secure and Norton are doing a good job too ...
I'm sorry IMO AV tests these days are useless because one test there on top of the world the next at the bottom and at times just mediocre. Also most users wouldn't come in contact with 99% of these malware's unless there looking for them! Again IMO and each to there own.
Plenty of antiviruses consistently perform well when tested. Even when an antivirus doesn't do as well one month, it will usually has a decent result nonetheless. Do you have any actual evidence to support your claim that users wouldn't encounter 99% of the malware tested? A common complaint about antivirus tests, is that due to the age of the malware tested, there is typically not a huge difference in results from one antivirus to the next and if newer malware was tested, you would see bigger differences between products. Anyway, considering that most products tested do well, it's reasonable assumption that the malware tested is commonly encountered. Perhaps your comment is due to the fact that a certain antivirus which you are a big supporter of, often does badly on the occasions when it's tested. While I certainly don't hate that product, I would like to see it improved so it can compete with other big name antiviruses. If they improved the detection rate, I'd probably use it.
I will say I haven't and I don't look for any and I know many that have never been infected by accident! (I will say I did in the past and never been infected by accident but playing with malware yes.)
I can say the same too. The only times I've been infected on updated computers, is when I've manually opened infected files. For the most part, I never encounter malware. However, I presume that the malware tested is pretty common, considering that for many antiviruses, there is very little difference in the test results.
Never forget there is a difference between us and the computer illiterate (as they often refer to themselves). Don't underestimate the ability of some folks to get compromised by things that some of us couldn't get infected with on purpose.
Yes I agree, I think the fault that some people on this forum make is that we mirror our own PC usage with others, fact is most other people aren't as tech savvy as us, and can easily be tricked into running malware. It's true that most of these malware will be caught be AV's, but not all of them. That's why I always frowned upon advice given by certain people on this forum, that an AV and ''not being click happy'' is enough to stay safe. I would always advice to install extra protection, like behavior blockers designed to tackle ransomware and info stealers for example.
