AV-Comparatives : Potentially Unwanted Applications test results in

Here is the link to their page-
http://www.av-comparatives.org/comparativesreviews/pua-tests
82,036 samples
Panda leads the way

 

Great results for a few vendors there.I'd be interested to see how much better MSE 2 would perform than the version tested.

 

Probably not that much higher. You have to consider that PUA's are not that important and that it still scored a respectable 93%, I think the massive line on the graph just makes it look worse

 

All the notable vendors performed very well in this test(Except Kaspersky and Eset) but still PUAs are not an issue for me as far as detection are concerned

 

Thanks for share Panda result is very good here.

 

I think this is down to who decides just what is a potentially unwanted application,it is rather arbitrary in its definition

 

At the bottom of page 4:
"Due to the challenge of testing PUA in that every AV vendor undergoes its own criteria to define the PUA bar, we are not planning to conduct a separate PUA test next year."

 

The only PUA alerts that I ever see are for Nirsoft programs. Even though their detection rates aren't as high as some of the others that were tested, it annoyed me enough to shut off the PUP detection in avast.

 

Nice

 

You've hit the nail on the head

- the average folks would hardly be affected by those unless a major FP.
- the techies would be affected seeing the no. of tools that they used which behave in a 'potentially unwanted' manner
- the warez community simply despise it as some AVs flag nearly all their "goodies" without mercy

 

always good to ur security product scoring high

 

It would have been good to see how Prevx scored in this test.

 

Potentially Unwanted Applications (PUA) has been a highly-debatable issue, as different vendors define PUA differently.
As a result, many have found these tests unnecessary...

Code:

"Due to the challenge of testing PUA in that every AV vendor undergoes
its own criteria to define the PUA bar,
[B]we are [U]not[/U] planning to conduct a [U]separate[/U] PUA test [U]next[/U] year[/B]."

I guess, the above explains everything...

 

I want to see more third party testing dedicated to testing an applications ability to detect, and defend against commercial keyloggers, and hardware keyloggers. It would be difficult to defend against hardware keyloggers since a person would have already had physical access to your machine to install a hardware keylogger, but I would just like to see an applications ability to detect them by detecting the drivers they use to function. I want to see how programs like Prevx, spyshelter, Zemana, and others hold up to third party testing. I would like to see their ability to defend against other logging methods as well, but my primary concern is keyloggers.

 

Higher the PUA detection Higher the FPs

 

Why? I've always known to [Norton] Symantec as a low FP product and higher detection in PUA

 

well cus many people will have different ideas of what program is "unwanted" so ull get more FP's with some people.

 

I'm pretty sure some folks here would disagree with that seeing how "aggressive" Norton Reputation Service and Sonar can be when it comes to files that Symantec knows not much about...for e.g. self-made batch files, self-made programs etc,etc

The typical home user might not experience that so Norton can be more suitable for them seeing they see less "FPs".