Discussion in 'other anti-virus software' started by Minimalist, Jul 16, 2021.
thank you, @Minimalist .
well done, kaspersky. 0 fp's.
panda, 49 fp's.
You're welcome. For me that result is expected
I thought it was actually a bit shocking that not one of them got a 100% score in the Real-World Protection Test, they all failed to block at least one sample. And how the heck did Cisco and Sophos perform so bad? Now that I think of it, is there perhaps some more info about this "Real-World Protection Test"?
I wouldn't consider that too surprising, considering that no antivirus provides 100% protection. At least, most of the antivirus scored 99% of higher.
Maybe if f-secure safe had participated, then maybe they would have managed 100%?
You forgot to mention Cybereason that scored lower than both of them.
This is true, but come on, AV's have become so advanced these days. I would like to see why they failed to block these malware samples, now that would be interesting. Is it perhaps because they are whitelisting too much stuff in order to avoid false positives? Or perhaps their behavior blocking simply isn't extensive enough, that kinda stuff.
Yes, but it's a lesser known name. Sophos and Cisco are way bigger if I'm correct.
Separate names with a comma.