AV-Comparatives Malware Protection Test - Sep 2021

Discussion in 'other anti-virus software' started by Spartan, Oct 15, 2021.

  1. Spartan

    Spartan Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2016
    Posts:
    1,045
    Location:
    Dubai
    Full Article:

    https://www.av-comparatives.org/tests/malware-protection-test-september-2021/

    Chart:

    https://www.av-comparatives.org/comparison/?usertype=consumer&chart_chart=chart9&chart_year=2021&chart_month=9&chart_sort=1&chart_zoom=2
     
  2. imdb

    imdb Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2011
    Posts:
    3,284
  3. Hiltihome

    Hiltihome Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2013
    Posts:
    1,044
    Location:
    Baden Germany
    Formerly MS was blamed for high FPs.
    Have a look now.
    MS outperformed all, that have similar high protection.
     
  4. imdb

    imdb Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2011
    Posts:
    3,284
    yeah, exactly. blew the competition (paid alternatives) out of the water.
     
  5. Nightwalker

    Nightwalker Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2008
    Posts:
    1,309
    The haters will still say that Microsoft Defender is so heavy and bla bla bla meanwhile in real scenario usage it is pretty light, non conflict prone, a truly no hassle solution.
     
  6. DeRodeKater

    DeRodeKater Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2011
    Posts:
    26
    Good job again MS. And that for free.
     
  7. Rasheed187

    Rasheed187 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2004
    Posts:
    14,774
    Location:
    The Netherlands
    Well, I'm not a hater and I'm actually quite content with Win Defender eventhough it's not perfect. But I do think it's disturbing at how bad it is in detecting malware without the cloud. Do you have any idea why this is?
     
  8. gery

    gery Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2008
    Posts:
    2,145
    no fsecure?
     
  9. pernu

    pernu Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2021
    Posts:
    57
    Location:
    Norway
    Does anybody have any idea why f-secure is not tested?
     
  10. Nightwalker

    Nightwalker Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2008
    Posts:
    1,309
    To save some cash, AV tests arent cheap for security vendors and maybe just maybe F-Secure wasnt too happy about the results (false positive rate).
     
  11. gery

    gery Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2008
    Posts:
    2,145
    Or maybe they are too confident about their product and dont think they need to be tested at all
     
  12. imdb

    imdb Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2011
    Posts:
    3,284
    uh-huh, yeah right. :rolleyes:
     
  13. pernu

    pernu Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2021
    Posts:
    57
    Location:
    Norway
    If f-secure has loyal customers who trust the product, then it is possible that this is the reason. But f-secure sells its product to large online providers with hundreds of thousands of customers who then get f-secure, and these customers rarely buy another antivirus program.
     
  14. Brummelchen

    Brummelchen Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2009
    Posts:
    4,075
    simple as that: ask microsoft

    defender ftw!
     
  15. shmu26

    shmu26 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2015
    Posts:
    1,484
    It could have to do with how often it updates the local database. Defender updates less frequently than other AVs that I have tested.
     
  16. Krusty

    Krusty Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2012
    Posts:
    9,277
    Location:
    Among the gum trees
    In the case of Norton the local definitions are a small subset of the common current malware while the cloud has a much larger set of definitions. This means Norton will look up malware in its local database first for new files and if the other components of Norton haven't flagged it as malware (or deemed it safe) it will then be compared to the online database.

    All this means the local machine doesn't have to store a huge database of signatures that are not commonly infecting machines. The very latest signatures are always current on the 'cloud' servers. The downside of this approach is that while Norton is pretty good at stopping malware while the machine is connected to the internet, it is not so great while it is off-line. The reasoning behind this is that most machines are connected online most of the time while new files are introduced.

    I suspect there is similar reasoning for Microsoft and Defender.
     
  17. Rasheed187

    Rasheed187 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2004
    Posts:
    14,774
    Location:
    The Netherlands
    OK I see, but this also probably means that Win Defender has a weak heuristics system. So without the cloud it can't spot as many malware, at least not with generating false positives. What if your internet connection is down because of ISP problems and you had just downloaded a couple of apps? Also, why does M$ give the option to disable cloud scanning in the first place, if offline detection is so bad? It's weird to say the least.

    Why didn't I think of that, after all I have a direct hotline to M$.
     
  18. shmu26

    shmu26 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2015
    Posts:
    1,484
    I share your concern over that. You can beef up your Defender protection by enabling ASR rules, and by extending the time of cloud analysis, hoping your internet connection will kick in again. Or you can just switch to ESET...
     
  19. Krusty

    Krusty Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2012
    Posts:
    9,277
    Location:
    Among the gum trees
    I can't speak for MD. Just relating from memory Norton's approach.
     
  20. Bunkhouse Buck

    Bunkhouse Buck Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2007
    Posts:
    1,140
    Location:
    Las Vegas
    At some point users will decide that there is no need to pay for any AV. I determined that and I cannot be more pleased with no-hassle performance it provides and is simply integrated in the OS.
     
  21. imdb

    imdb Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2011
    Posts:
    3,284
    agreed.
     
  22. Osaban

    Osaban Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2005
    Posts:
    5,374
    Location:
    Milan and Seoul
    Great results for MS Defender disproving once again the idiom 'you get what you pay for'...
     
  23. Krusty

    Krusty Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2012
    Posts:
    9,277
    Location:
    Among the gum trees
    Well no, not really. You paid for Windows one way or the other so technically you paid for MD as it is included with the OS.
     
  24. imdb

    imdb Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2011
    Posts:
    3,284
    well, that's another way to look at it; and for sure, one that you can't argue with.
     
  25. Krusty

    Krusty Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2012
    Posts:
    9,277
    Location:
    Among the gum trees
    ;) :thumb:
     
  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.