AV-Comparatives : Anti-Phishing Certification Test 2020

Discussion in 'other anti-virus software' started by Thankful, Jul 24, 2020.

  1. Thankful

    Thankful Savings Monitor

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2005
    Posts:
    5,422
    Location:
    New York City
    AV-Comparatives evaluated submitted Windows products against more than 500 phishing URLs. To be certified, a product had to detect and block at least 85% of these. To ensure that the security programs do not provide protection at the expense of false alarms, a false-positives test was also carried out. Products had to demonstrate that they do not block any legitimate Internet banking websites.
    Only six of the tested products were certified.
    https://www.av-comparatives.org/news/anti-phishing-certification-test-2020/
     
  2. imdb

    imdb Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2011
    Posts:
    2,078
    @Thankful

    thanks. :thumb:

    tm (95%) > bd (94%) > avira (91%) > kaspersky (90%), all with 0 fp's. well done. :thumb:
     
  3. Marcelo

    Marcelo Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2005
    Posts:
    219
    Location:
    Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
    I would love to see a test with maximized paranoid settings to see if they actually make a difference.
     
  4. imdb

    imdb Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2011
    Posts:
    2,078
    might have a negative effect, such as higher fp's.
     
  5. Page42

    Page42 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2007
    Posts:
    6,487
    Location:
    USA
    I see that ESET NOD32 did not make the 85% cut, but security is about layers. Two tools I use, Quad9 DNS and AdGuard for Windows, possess anti-phishing capability that should make up for whatever slack ESET may have.
     
  6. Krusty

    Krusty Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2012
    Posts:
    7,982
    Location:
    Among the gum trees
    Norton wasn't tested.

    I wonder how well browsers would do on there own?
     
  7. Marcelo

    Marcelo Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2005
    Posts:
    219
    Location:
    Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
    Yeap but I wnder if there would be more detections orr if we just get more false positives.
     
  8. gery

    gery Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2008
    Posts:
    2,103
    Which else was tested and did not make it
     
  9. Page42

    Page42 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2007
    Posts:
    6,487
    Location:
    USA
    Good question. I wondered that myself.
     
  10. itman

    itman Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2010
    Posts:
    8,012
    Location:
    U.S.A.
    How do you know that Eset participates in this test?

    Last ref. to Eset in this test series was in 2016. AV Labs charge for certification testing. My guess is Eset feels participation in this test adds no product value.
     
  11. Page42

    Page42 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2007
    Posts:
    6,487
    Location:
    USA
    Hi itman. I don't know if ESET participated or not, hence my response to gery above. When I saw ESET listed at the bottom of the AV-Comparatives page under "Main Test-Series Vendors", I thought that alluded to the vendors tested. Thanks for pointing out that they may not have. Be nice to know. :thumb:

    av test vendors.jpg
     
  12. itman

    itman Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2010
    Posts:
    8,012
    Location:
    U.S.A.
    The AV-C main test series are for example the periodic real-time and malware comparative tests for the most part.

    Also AV-C has recently introduced comparative subcategory testing of areas included on the aforementioned series tests such as a Performance one here: https://www.av-comparatives.org/com...=2020&chart_month=4&chart_sort=1&chart_zoom=0 that Eset did participate in.

    Again, AV Labs charge separately for certification tests.
     
  13. IBK

    IBK AV Expert

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2003
    Posts:
    1,862
    Location:
    Innsbruck (Austria)
    Performance testing is also part of the main-test series since 2008.
     
  14. itman

    itman Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2010
    Posts:
    8,012
    Location:
    U.S.A.
    I stated this in my last reply.

    Clarify if Eset did or did not request Performance certification testing.
     
  15. IBK

    IBK AV Expert

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2003
    Posts:
    1,862
    Location:
    Innsbruck (Austria)
    Sorry but I only comment on things that are publicly stated on the website. The website does not state those who submitted but failed.
     
  16. Page42

    Page42 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2007
    Posts:
    6,487
    Location:
    USA
    By following this practice you have effectively cast doubt over every vendor, whether they submitted or not. If a vendor is not part of your test, it is a disservice on your part to not disclose the actual participants. The disservice is to both the non-participants and to the viewing public. Just my opinion.
     
  17. itman

    itman Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2010
    Posts:
    8,012
    Location:
    U.S.A.
    Agreed. This:
    implies that there were failures. The proper way to state this would be the following test series vendors ............. did not participate or requested that test results not be disclosed. Per se, it does not imply that they failed certification.

    Better yet since this wasn't comparative testing, don't make the results public at all. Assumed is certified vendors will have no difficulty stating they were.

    As far as I am concerned the way the report is presented "is veiled coercion" to get all series vendors to get certified. I for one really don't pay attention to AV-C testing anymore.
     
    Last edited: Jul 27, 2020
  18. gery

    gery Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2008
    Posts:
    2,103
    So do we have the full results ?
     
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.