AV-Comparatives: Real World Protection Test - April 2016

Discussion in 'other anti-virus software' started by anon, May 17, 2016.

  1. entropism

    entropism Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2004
    Posts:
    491
    A turnaround implies McAfee used to be desirable at some point in recent history.
     
  2. larryb52

    larryb52 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2006
    Posts:
    1,131
    nice to see avast up there and sorry ESET has slipped in recent years...
     
  3. chrcol

    chrcol Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2006
    Posts:
    979
    Location:
    UK
    I hate it when graphs dont start at 0 to make the difference between comparisons look massive, it starts at 80% what the hell.
     
  4. FleischmannTV

    FleischmannTV Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2013
    Posts:
    1,094
    Location:
    Germany
  5. Minimalist

    Minimalist Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2014
    Posts:
    14,756
    Location:
    Slovenia, EU
  6. FleischmannTV

    FleischmannTV Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2013
    Posts:
    1,094
    Location:
    Germany
  7. atunis5804

    atunis5804 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2015
    Posts:
    43
    Avira is consistently at the top, unlike AVG.
     
  8. anon

    anon Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2012
    Posts:
    7,407
    The "Zoom" tab has 4 options
    and everyone can read the graph as he wants.

    I can't see where the problem is.
     
  9. Minimalist

    Minimalist Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2014
    Posts:
    14,756
    Location:
    Slovenia, EU
    Yes, that's what I'm talking about. IMO default (not links on this forum) should be 0-100%.
     
  10. chrcol

    chrcol Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2006
    Posts:
    979
    Location:
    UK
  11. Macstorm

    Macstorm Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2005
    Posts:
    2,642
    Location:
    Sneffels volcano
    It's just av-c doesn't like ppl to see that ALL av's are pretty much the same, detection wise :geek:
     
  12. FleischmannTV

    FleischmannTV Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2013
    Posts:
    1,094
    Location:
    Germany
    No, the first link in this post was generated by anon. You can generate your own links with your preferred view on that page.
     
  13. Trooper

    Trooper Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2005
    Posts:
    5,323
    Hope Eset and Sophos both pick up their game.
     
  14. Nightwalker

    Nightwalker Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2008
    Posts:
    1,375
    It seems that less than 100 % in a test is unacceptable now for some Wilders users :rolleyes:

    IMO Eset is doing fine in those tests and even better in real usage.
     
  15. Marcos

    Marcos Eset Staff Account

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2002
    Posts:
    14,454
    It also depends on what test one looks at. For instance https://threatcenter.crdf.fr/?Stats :)
     
  16. TonyW

    TonyW Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2005
    Posts:
    2,741
    Location:
    UK
    Are they not continuing with their statistics on detection rates of AV products? If I'm not mistaken, that looks like it's from August 2015. The award image at the bottom of the page, which is "dynamically generated every night", shows ESET as #1 on 13 August 2015.
     
  17. Osaban

    Osaban Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2005
    Posts:
    5,506
    Location:
    Milan and Seoul
    Symantec 0%? Trend Micro 0%? Certainly quite remarkable... I tend to believe in results from many different tests...
     
  18. Charyb

    Charyb Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2013
    Posts:
    678
    I'm not certain that any of the sample files are actually executed. It sounds like it's an on-demand scan using VirusTotal.

    https://threatcenter.crdf.fr/?Stats

    "The principle of this test is very simple and can be made every day a quick opinion on detections of various antivirus products. This test was created solely for informational purposes. We take the most recent samples of our databases and we subject them to various antivirus products. Once out of the sample, we scan (with VirusTotal Online scanner) directly with the latest update of antivirus products to show their effectiveness.

    Thank you please note and understand that this test is carried out every day automatically via reports generated by VirusTotal. This test is conducted and published an informational purposes only, and we do not guarantee the accuracy of the data. The method used in this test is only based on the analysis proposed by VirusTotal engine."
     
  19. Osaban

    Osaban Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2005
    Posts:
    5,506
    Location:
    Milan and Seoul
    @ Charyb, thanks, but it is far from being accurate...
     
  20. Charyb

    Charyb Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2013
    Posts:
    678
    I agree. Not to mention outdated.

    Here is an explanation of the testing procedure from -> https://threatcenter.crdf.fr/?Faq

     
    Last edited: May 23, 2016
  21. Firecat

    Firecat Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2005
    Posts:
    8,243
    Location:
    The land of no identity :D
    The product is actually not bad. The problems with McAfee have never been about it's protection levels (which have always been "acceptable"). It's the other issues such as performance, bloat and less-than-satisfactory customer service that have caused problems for McAfee.

    I use the 2016 range on a few computers and while it is sometimes heavier than I would like, it does work well and is fairly simple to use for all.
     
  22. Nightwalker

    Nightwalker Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2008
    Posts:
    1,375
    Many antivirus nowdays are getting "100 %" in real world protection test and yet we have millions of users with up to date software getting infected each day :rolleyes:

    I would love to see what module has "protected" the machine; I have a suspicious that some antivirus developers learned to cheat those tests using web filter and cloud protection.
     
  23. cruelsister

    cruelsister Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2007
    Posts:
    1,597
    Location:
    Paris
    It's easy to be 100% when true zero-day samples aren't used.
     
  24. It is possible to be 100% when variants of existing malware are used. For new generations of existing families or new families of zero days it is very hard to acquire 100%.

    On the other hand it is very hard for testers to get their hands on zero day (maximum one day old discovery in the Wild) in any variant, so my guess is that no test agency or institute uses true zero day as you call it.

    On the other-other hand new generations and new families are rare, so using prevalence as a factor zero days are a non issue also (the risk of trashing your car is higher than trashing your PC with a zero day).

    What is a false zero day according to your definition (when there are true zero days logic predicts that there are also false zero days).
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 6, 2016
  25. cruelsister

    cruelsister Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2007
    Posts:
    1,597
    Location:
    Paris
    Agreed about the difficulty by reviewers in acquiring true zero day samples. That's why I prefer to code my own- not as popular, but to my thought more realistic.
     
  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.