Whoo--Malwarebytes and Trend with the FPs. Norton too, to a lesser extent. What is up with that? Def. the lesser of two evils when it comes to these tests but still. Good to see that Trend's legit detections improved from last time, though.
Norton seems to be good at blocking just about anything unknown to it. I'm not using it now. Both my Windows machines have KSC.
Finally a test where everything is clear, when it comes to false positives, malware samples that were missed and which one were user dependent. Win Defender missed 3 samples! And even Bitdefender and Kaspersky missed 2. Avast, AVG and G-Data missed none.
It all depends on what samples are used. I suspect the statistical variance is much larger than many would assume based on the samples selected. Therein lies the problem for me with these tests- or any tests for that matter.
Are you referring to false positives as the lesser of evils? If so you can certainly go with that but for myself, I have never had a PC hosed by malware as I have encountered very little in actual usage. I have been hosed by false positives multiple times. I've had PCs left unbootable by Norton, Kaspersky, Outpost Security Suite (no longer produced) and Microsoft OneCare (I assume that is a no longer produced and not an early version of what they produce now). If that false positive is a driver or system file, I hope you have a backup.
Me too, but the worst culprit was Comodo with it's default deny and HIPS switched on, triggered for seemingly every innocuous event. Unusable, except for knowledgeable IT folk.
Norton Power Eraser? I would not dream of putting a third party antivirus on here. Sorry for your misunderstanding, should have put in better context. In general, though, if it came down to it, I would choose putting up with false positives better than false negatives. That is what I meant by the lesser of two evils. Of course it's a generalization as nobody can tell what problems would be exacerbated by a faulty Windows installation, for example.
