this. https://techtalk.pcpitstop.com/2016...ectionratetesting=&ad_id=504806&share-ad-id=1 Sure does not say anything about Achilles heal, of all zero day.
PCPitstop partnered with AV-Comparative for this "new generation" involuntary test (AV companies are not asked nor warned about it). But PCPitstop is the author of PCMatic AV that is (by chance ) one of the few on top of the list. I wonder if they would have published this info if they were not on top. This test seems not public, or at least could not find it on the net.
Oh, OK. Thank you and sorry! You never announced it on your website or I must be blind. EDIT: well, after reading the report PCMatic/PCPitstop is not really on top if you consider the false positives...
They are getting better; it used to be in the thousands! Re: https://www.virusbulletin.com/virusbulletin/2014/04/comparative-review-windows-7
I believe this test is suspect, particularly in view of the fact that a "top rank" product (disregarding FPs) is one of the "geniuses" behind this test, and in particular since I can't even go to it's website without getting a scam warning alert from Adguard, likely as a result of PC Pitstop. The fact that a graphic of the "test" is being pushed that does not include FPs and excludes a host of top-shelf security products only adds to my lack of faith in the "test." I also believe that AV Comparatives did a disservice to it's well established integrity by linking up with PC Pitstop for a comparative test that includes PC Pitstop's security product -- PC Matic. PC Pitstop has not had a reputation for being the cleanest towel on the rack. What's so special about this test other than it is involuntary for all tested products other than PC Matic, includes a fairly large number of ransomeware and other samples, and is the only test I have seen that includes PC Matic?
Also curious (to me) that on the pc-pitstop web graph kaspersky kis2017 appears to be slightly less than 100% but looking at the AVC pdf graph of same test results and the text box, kis scored 100%.
One way or the other, an interesting contribution to the "anti" discussion in the arena of public opinion. I stand to be corrected, but I seem to recall PC Pitstop uses Vipre tech on the backend. The absence of Bitdefender, Avira and Avast in the Antivirus Test History graphic is inexcusable. Or pathetic. Your choice. As is the absence of Avast in the AVC pdf. PC Pitstop also chose to eliminate five of the fifteen developers in their AVC graphic. Sloppy. I also question any anti-ransomware test that doesn't involve a system reboot (see Cruelsister's most recent vids). 1000 samples. 15 products. 15000 reboots? 15000 holes poked?
Well! I don't think PC Pitstop is targeting the Wilders group. I believe the involvement with AV-C, is nothing more than $$$ & many were not included, perhaps $$$ you can choose who's included in the test. The way PC-Matic told it's story is, understandable, to it's target audience, the lay person, or avg Joe (pun not intended). The bigger story "not told" is all are vulnerable, to the same threat 0-day, but that would not, help sales. So hush! What's surprising or misleading, is the poor showing by MBAM, & Webroot. What's surprising is the range of threats, used by different test org's. I would like to hear more on this! Does this give the tested product, better grades depending on who you choose for testing? Or is this BS from PC-matic? What's surprising AV companies care more about cash & renewal $$$, than addressing safety. ie. KIS & MBAE & ASUS router AV all allowed a threat, on my wifes machine. Shadow Mode for her now! Money first, protection later
Webroot's showing doesn't surprise me, simply due to the nature of the product. It allows the file to run, watched until it starts acting funny, then it eliminates the file and rolls back everything to the clean state. For all we know, these files just executed, with nothing harmful actually done.
Very interesting! If I may know, which kind of threat was not detected? A PUP perhaps? I find it hard to believe that with that very strong layer of protection (ASUS Trend engine, KIS, and MBAE) you have been still infected by 'serious' malware.
Hello, PC Pitstop does not use VIPRE in PC Matic. The product has it's own antimalware engine, and isn't using another SDK. As far as the other products you mentioned, they are on the list. Please see the full report here http://www.av-comparatives.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/avc_sp_pcpitstop_2016_en.pdf The point in the TechTalk blog is that vendors who make antimalware products can no longer hide from being tested. Everyone, particularly the users of antimalware products, have the right to know how well their product works. This test was commissioned by PC Pitstop, however, we didn't influence the test. We simply wanted to know how well our product performed. Being a whitelist security product, we have more false positives than blacklist engines, but do a very good job at protecting the computer from being infected by ransomware and other malware. Thanks, Dodi Glenn VP, Cyber Security
FaceBook celebrity pic, first HMP found coupon bar + tracking cookies. MBAM 0, ADW found several locations of 'nicerdays' removed <reboot> many more scans nothing found. This threat, claimed a TR, & wanted us to call fake M$ phone number & claimed leaving the page, would compromise data, it did not. The pic was immediately removed by FB Note I felt confident leaving the page despite warning, as a new Macrium back was at hand, along with rescue disc
Why pay for PC-Matic or other, when Panda Free, equaled & did better, on FP's than PC-Matic & others? You charge for products, then leave the barn door wide open, when infected, well that's not our fault!
Just to follow up to my last post, there were products that were left off of the blog post, due to the market share they have within the US. However, as shown on the report linked above, the products that were tested were AVG Internet Security 2016 Avira Antivirus Pro 15.0 Bitdefender Internet Security 20.0 ESET Smart Security 9.0 iolo System Shield 5.0 Kaspersky Internet Security 2017 MalwareBytes Anti-Malware Premium 2.2 McAfee Internet Security 18.0 Panda Free Antivirus 16.1 PC Matic PC Pitstop SuperShield 2.0 Sophos Endpoint Security and Control 10.6 ThreaTrack Vipre Internet Security Pro 9.3 TotalDefense AntiVirus 9.0 Trend Micro Internet Security 10.0 Webroot SecureAnywhere 9.0
Dodi - Your squarely in the pack or herd, none really stand out, & all are impotent, against the same common threat. All this seems to be doing is, putting the herd under the microscope, then proclaiming by me because. Stand out from the crowd & address, the threat, that's common to the herd.
Thank you for posting the details of the case! Sounds like a redirect to a page claiming infection. Hardly any AV would help in this case as no real infection or attempt to infect did occur in the first place.
Rico, Thanks for the reply back. What this test showed was that the majority of the security providers out there are, in fact, doing a relatively decent job. It did show that there are a couple of vendors who should work with the various testing agencies to resolve their detection issues. If you think there should be a different test, I'd be happy to entertain your thoughts offline. Thanks, Dodi Glenn
That's what I meant by "the AVC pdf" in my post #8. I know, vague. My bad. Your post #12 cleared up the other matters nicely. Thanks. My recollection to Vipre and PC Matic hails back to http://techtalk.pcpitstop.com/2013/06/05/introducing-pc-matic-home-security/ and "We license the Vipre Engine from Threat Track in Clearwater, Florida." Obviously, not the case anymore. 2013. I didn't know I have brain cells that go back that far. And... Welcome to Wilders! Developer input is always greatly appreciated.
We actually DO stand out from the pack/herd. See the latest Virus Bulletin RAP score? https://www.virusbulletin.com/uploads/pdf/magazine/2016/201608-vb100-comparative.pdf Scroll down to page 18, and you'll see how well PC Pitstop did.
Scroll down to page 15, and see stability score and rating: https://www.virusbulletin.com/uploads/pdf/magazine/2016/201608-vb100-comparative.pdf
For all we know webroot is not able to proof that their product is effective. Yes very useful, when the damage is done, your money or your data stolen then webroot reacts and clean your computer... Or not, who knows. It just rely on a BB like all the other AVs that fail to detect malware
Considering there are a LOT of IT pros that use (and prefer) Webroot, and my own experience with it on a business and personal level, I know it works. There are a few corporate security forums (such as Spiceworks) where Webroot is one of the top choices in corporate AVs, simply due to the ease of use and effectiveness. That being said, there's no way to know about any of these. Testing from lab to lab varies tremendously, and you can only go by personal experience. I personally haven't had a virus get through yet on a Webroot/Zemana/MBAE protected system, and I haven't even seen anything get past an AV of mine in years. Way too many to guess accurately. 6? 7? Couldn't tell you for sure.
Did they not test windows defender? I honestly don't think these tests are anything more then paid advertising for av companies.
