AV-Comparatives: Malware Protection Test September 2019

Discussion in 'other anti-virus software' started by anon, Oct 16, 2019.

  1. anon

    anon Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2012
    Posts:
    5,941
  2. itman

    itman Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2010
    Posts:
    7,721
    Location:
    U.S.A.
    For this test series, you need to review the .pdf version which shows detection if the network connection is disabled or hijacked by malware.
     
    Last edited: Oct 16, 2019
  3. xxJackxx

    xxJackxx Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2008
    Posts:
    5,282
    Location:
    USA
    Good suggestion. I wasn't going to look at it until I saw your post. Very interesting.
     
  4. Rasheed187

    Rasheed187 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2004
    Posts:
    12,126
    Location:
    The Netherlands
    This shows that AV's are basically pretty dumb without the cloud. That's why I became so excited when I read about new AI tools like Cylance, who claim they can spot malware without any cloud. But it turned out to be mostly hype since it was possible to easily fool Cylance. They did claim they fixed it though.
     
  5. itman

    itman Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2010
    Posts:
    7,721
    Location:
    U.S.A.
    Again you lump some with all. Eset's off/online detentions are identical. Kaspersky's are very close to each other. The "looser's" in this analysis were WD and Trend.
     
  6. Minimalist

    Minimalist Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2014
    Posts:
    12,403
    Location:
    Here
    I agree and Panda is also similarly dependent on cloud detection.
     
  7. Gein

    Gein Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2013
    Posts:
    178
    Why is there no offline protection rate? There's an offline detection rate. It might be that with some of these vendors their scans are dependent more on internet connectivity than other protection methods they employ once you run a file.
     
  8. Pat MacKnife

    Pat MacKnife Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2014
    Posts:
    519
    Location:
    Belgium
    They were not losers, at the end they still blocked the malware to score almost a 100%
    So offline / online doesn't say much.....
     
  9. Krond

    Krond Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2005
    Posts:
    54
    The score of 100% is only on online detection, don´t mix this.
     
  10. itman

    itman Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2010
    Posts:
    7,721
    Location:
    U.S.A.
    I agree.

    AV-C just showed what off-line detection is. Their job is to test AV solutions as they normally run; i.e. w/Internet connectivity. Hence why there was no off-line protection testing. The important point to note from the .pdf write-up is the AV solution should at least inform that their cloud capability is non-functional.

    Would be informative if these ad hoc testers at sites like malwaretips.com would perform testing with the network connection disabled.
     
    Last edited: Oct 20, 2019
  11. xxJackxx

    xxJackxx Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2008
    Posts:
    5,282
    Location:
    USA
    A good example of why if I were to write malware I would either kill the internet connection or at least block the servers used by the AV companies. The latter would probably go unnoticed by most users.
     
  12. ance

    ance formerly: fmon

    Joined:
    May 5, 2013
    Posts:
    1,298
    Nearly all AV detected 100 % so maybe malware will die out soon, please write some new malware Jack to save jobs. :D
     
  13. xxJackxx

    xxJackxx Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2008
    Posts:
    5,282
    Location:
    USA
    Bwahahahhaaaaaa!!! Best post ever! :argh:
     
Loading...
  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.