AV-Comparatives: Certification Test based on AMTSO Real Time Threat List (RTTL) March 2016

Discussion in 'other anti-virus software' started by anon, Apr 14, 2016.

  1. anon

    anon Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2012
    Posts:
    4,097
    AV-Comparatives: Certification Test based on AMTSO Real Time Threat List (RTTL) March 2016
    http://www.av-comparatives.org/certification-tests/

    A protection rate over 98% is required to get certified.
     
    Last edited: Apr 14, 2016
  2. Thankful

    Thankful Savings Monitor

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2005
    Posts:
    3,741
    Location:
    New York City
    Thanks for posting. Interesting that MSE did well. Is this closer to the prevalence analysis Microsoft has been speaking about?
     
  3. anon

    anon Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2012
    Posts:
    4,097
  4. Thankful

    Thankful Savings Monitor

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2005
    Posts:
    3,741
    Location:
    New York City
  5. fax

    fax Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2005
    Posts:
    3,731
    Location:
    localhost
    Finally a test in which Webroot participated but the results...oops
     
  6. garrett76

    garrett76 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2014
    Posts:
    210
    Quihoo the worst? :confused:
     
  7. Minimalist

    Minimalist Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2014
    Posts:
    5,079
    Maybe other malware is more prevalent in China than in Western countries...
     
  8. Rompin Raider

    Rompin Raider Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2010
    Posts:
    1,228
    Location:
    North Texas
    I think Microsoft has been referring to their Windows 10 "Windows Defender" as the new improved protection.
     
  9. trjam

    trjam Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2006
    Posts:
    9,057
    Location:
    North Carolina
    and is anyone surprised. I mean with all due respect, is anyone seriously using it.
     
  10. Triple Helix

    Triple Helix Webroot Product Advisor

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2004
    Posts:
    12,012
    Location:
    Ontario, Canada
    Yea I would like to know as well. But you know Webroot's stance on any testing "Real World testing"

     
  11. webbit

    webbit Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2008
    Posts:
    222
    would you care to elaborate
     
  12. toxinon12345

    toxinon12345 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2010
    Posts:
    1,200
    Location:
    Managua, Nicaragua
    Good to see ESET Smart Security in the 99% protection line.
     
  13. Umbra

    Umbra Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2011
    Posts:
    2,203
    Location:
    in a remote land :)
    253 malwares used not mentioned, shady...
    samples submitted by vendors, pointless...

    the idea was good, the implementation messed up.
     
  14. funkydude

    funkydude Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2004
    Posts:
    6,855
    Windows 7, yawn.
    Wake me up when they perform a serious test.
     
  15. Minimalist

    Minimalist Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2014
    Posts:
    5,079
    Do you think that testing them on other system would give different results?
     
  16. itman

    itman Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2010
    Posts:
    2,969
    Location:
    U.S.A.
    You can read about the samples used by AV-C in this test here: http://www.amtso.org/rttl/

    Only problem I see with using such samples is by definition there are already "known" by a number of the AV vendors being tested since they submitted the some of the samples. This will definitely give the submitting samples vendors an edge in testing. To be completely unbiased, submitting sample vendors should be excluded from tests like this.

    Much better approach to catching 0-day malware is that used by NSS Labs. They set up a "honeypot" so to speak and continuous monitor activity for a two month period
     
  17. ArchiveX

    ArchiveX Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2014
    Posts:
    1,016
  18. fax

    fax Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2005
    Posts:
    3,731
    Location:
    localhost
    If the AMTSO does the work well the bias should be minimised as malware comes with data on "prevalence and regions". In other words, how would you justify an AV not detecting a widespread and prevalent malware?
     
Loading...