thanks, @Minimalist . well done, ms. 0 fp's and 99.7℅ protection. and well done, kaspersky and bd. 0 fp's and 99.9℅ protection.
I didn't read the whole report yet, but to me it's still astonishing that none of these highly advanced AV's can get a 100% score. I would sure like to know more about which malware they failed to block. And it proves my point that it's always a good idea to use multiple layers of defense, no matter how small the risk is that AV's will fail to block malware. Because it only takes one slip up to do any damage.
For me 90%+ detection rate is more than enough. If my AV blocks nine out of ten infection attempts, and I encounter malware once every ten years, my system is relatively safe for the rest of my life. More layers are of course welcomed if one encounters malware more often.
No, this doesnt prove anything. Actually what this test shows is that most antivirus solutions nowadays offer good protection, thats it, anything beyond this is pure personal agenda.
Pretty much that, it has been at least 8 years that I actually encountered a piece of malware in my normal daily usage (and it was detected by many antivirus solutions in that time).
For me it was Sasser on Windows Xp and before that Michelangelo on DOS (while I was using Windows 3.11).
What I'm trying to say is that even the best of the best AV's can fail to block malware from running. Yes, they will block 99% of all malware but if it's your unlucky day, you might encounter that one malware sample that manages to bypass AV. So yes, it proves my point that relying only on AV is not good enough. Why do you think that companies invest billions a year in so called EDR systems? In my view, you always need to have a pre-execution and post-execution strategy. So if malware manages to run, you must at least be able to block them from achieving their goal. Just because something has never happened or is unlikely to happen, doesn't mean it will NEVER happen. Adding additional tools as extra layers that don't hurt system usability, stability and performance is never a bad idea in my book.
It doesn't prove anything. If you are always careful about what files you open, then it's highly unlikely that you would download or open an infected file. Even if you aren't that careful, but stay away from pirated software and don't open email attachments unless you are sure the email is legitimate, then quite possibly you won't encounter malware anyway.
That's a different discussion. If you never encounter malware you might as well stop using any security tool. But in this particular test, they tested about 750 malware samples against the best of the best AV's, yet a couple of samples still managed to bypass AV. So it proves that AV's are still not good enough to block ALL malware, even with cloud protection and behavioral blocking. Of course a 99% protection rate is pretty good, but there is always a risk that some app that you download might be infected, let's also not forgot about supply chain attacks. But anyway, now that I think of it, I wonder what the hell is going on with Sophos and ESET, they performed worse than Malwarebytes, K7 and VIPRE, I would really like to know what type of malware they failed to protect against, too bad that they don't disclose this information.
It's not just me. Many people never encounter malware. For me, this does not provide a reason to stop using antivirus software, because one day I may encounter malware, so it doesn't hurt. Sure, but I've got no interest in blocking all malware, because I know that is exceptionally rare for one of my computers to get infected. That's good enough for me. I certainly don't want to do any hardening, or install additional security software that may cause issues. At least with just running antivirus software, for the most part, I only get alerted when something malicious or suspicious is found. The rest of the time, I can use my computer without being interrupted. Of course, if it was easy to get infected, I would do more to protect my computers.
