Discussion in 'other anti-virus software' started by Minimalist, Dec 8, 2020.
ESET did a pretty good job in this test. How good is ESET these days? Is it as good as Kaspersky and Bitdefender as far as its detection rate is concerned? I haven't used it for ages. Maybe I should give it another try.
congrats to kaspersky and thanks to @Minimalist.
It's great. Looking at AV-C tests it seems to me that they've improved over past year or so.
It's not bad and is one of my preferred products but I don't renew it unless I can find a deal, which I usually cannot.
Thanks, @Minimalist and @xxJackxx I do appreciate your opinions.
Interesting stuff, from what I understood these were all quite advanced tests, I assume home users won't encounter them normally speaking. And too bad that none of the AV's could stop all attacks, but ESET and Kaspersky came close.
Bitdefender managed to do it in Enterprise section.
In regards to the Enterprise test, note that Fortinet passed all the tests but wasn't certified. Why?
A classic example of how AV labs heavily penalize anti-exec techniques.
I am totally okay with this, anti-executables are not antivirus solutions and anyone in that industry can make one; it is easy to lockdown the system against malware, what it is hard is to balance that with usability.
I agree. Paying users expect AV to know what is malicious and not to block legitimate apps/actions. Otherwise why would they pay for a service?
Exactly! You dont need to pay for this, Windows already has SRP and AppLocker.
The problem is that the percentage of the PC using population that even know what those are let alone how to set them up is likely in the single digits.
that sounds too optimistic. most people keep using their systems with preinstalled oem sw.
Single digits sounds optimistic? Are you suggesting it is less? Fraction of a percent? I could be persuaded to agree.
Once (I think it was only once) in 2006 av-comparatives tested several types of security solutions
I wish they've kept the practice.
It would be interesting to see Comodo and its sandbox tested in this Enhanced Real-World Test.
Context is everything, they will have the same problems with the mentioned Fortinet solution and remember that it was tested in the Enterprise evaluation, so it is the admin job to configure all that stuff.
Again, I think antivirus solutions should be heavy penalized by using anti-exec techniques while not distinguishing between non-malicious and malicious scripts/actions.
yep, fraction of a percent sounds more reasonable i think.
if we asked 100 people what srp stands for, 99 of them would probably go like "yeah, i know this one, it's one of those car safety technologies, like abs and aeb, right?".
Thats why anti-exec techniques usually sucks, native to Windows or not.
For me it is very important that a solution has the capability to distinguish between non-malicious and malicious scripts/actions.
Users that can employ anti-exec techniques dont need them in first place ...
yeah, i believe so too. and it's much more crucial for the average jane and joe who can't tell one from the other.
Good point, I agree.
OK thanks, will check it out.
Most interesting is Microsoft not participating in either the Consumer or Enterprise test.
Given the never ending voluminous propaganda web postings by Microsoft that Window Defender ATP "is the greatest thing since the invention of sliced bread" against ATP attacks, they surely would want to substantiate those claims by independent testing.
isn't it because atp is an enterprise solution for msd for ep? home users do not have atp, so i don't think it would be fair to test msd with other av products.
IMO it wouldn't be unfair if they were tested in Enterprise section of this test.
Separate names with a comma.