AV-Comparatives real-world protection test August 2014

Trend Micro has been almost the king of false positives in this year's test until this most recent one. It's detection is good, if you don't care about false positives.

 

Keep me posted, given how amazing some of the backend changes were that aren't even discussed yet in the whitepaper, I think you will find your secure feeling reinforced. There are so many improvements that it really isn't anything near the same as it was in 2014. Watch the testing scores go through the roof.

 

JFYI try to disable the “Memory Usage Optimization” feature. It will load everything into the RAM but will make EAM has less impact to system performance overall.

 

After 1-2 hours of use, what makes you feel so much more secure? Have you been testing it?

 

this is only one test so far, imo i doubt they will score a 100% on every test. but im sure we will see you switch to something else soon enough.

as far as trend micro goes i am liking the new version but one thing that i REALLY wish you guys would add is a custom installer. this is the direction everyone is going and i dont get it. i personally dont want social scanning, and every shield and other things and the kitchen sink installed. this is my one reason right now for shying away from avira. they had a nice custom installer for those who didnt want the extras and for now at least took that away.

emsisoft i really do like very much. i do not find it nearly as heavy as some say it is. i also though do not find it super light. for me it falls kind of in between as far as lightness is concerned. the main area i notice it is web browsing it does seem to slow things up browsing wise for me. the new internet security version is imo much lighter then when i was running the av and oa separate for sure.

 

Hell, yes.
I tried Emsisoft AM a couple weeks ago and I loved it just the moment it was installed (I even congratulated them) but subsequent hours were a nightmare on my old dual-core Sony laptop. Still, I think that EAM is one of the best security software out there.
On the other hand, and compared to EAM, GDataAV is featherweight on my system (but not par to the latest KasperskyAV and AviraPro, the 'lighter' ones among them).

 

Trend, IMO, is a product that focuses so much on lightness that it leverages the cloud too heavily to do it's thing. It's one reason I do not approve using the product. We have seen some good changes in this test and I am glad to see Avast and AVG are still competitive.

 

Which is worse. Poor detection rates or false positives?

 

Yes it is the first time they score 100%, although since the introduction of the Avira Protection Cloud their results have been stellar, this is no fluke, rather a crescendo that is paying off in the long run. As Kaspersky has shown, it’s not possible to have 100% in every test, but keeping an average of 99+% is a remarkable performance for any AV.

 

Does TM include a firewall? - I see no mention of a firewall anywhere on it's site.

 

Both. I would prefer more FPs to poor detection, but a lot of FPs are also dangerous.

 

Lightness? Really? Not seeing it.

 

Trend 2015 should be one of the lightest AV's now in terms of system performance. As for too much reliance on the cloud, you need to realize that cloud based systems, machine learning, and leveraged partners are the way it's going. But trend utilizes several technologies in 2015, the cloud is simply one of the methods it is improving detections. (which is evident in the latest AVC) The cloud engine is the 'Collaborative Detection Engine', but now the product has a distinct, separate Heuristic Engine. So the total picture looks like this;

Collaborative Detection Engine (Cloud)
Threat Diagnostic Engine (Sig Analysis)
Virus Scan Engine (Sig Scan)
Behavior Engine (Self Explanatory)
Web Engine (Port80/443 Inspection)
Trojan Engine (Trojan Sigs)
Spyware Engine (Spyware/PUA Sigs)
System Event Engine (Illegal System Changes)
Program Verify Engine (Shops for Unsigned/Strange Programs)
Browser Exploit Engine (Looks for Exploits, MTM, etc)
Script Engine (Looks for Script Threats)
Network Inspection Engine (Watches for Net Threats)
Heuristic Inspection Engine (Exactly what it says)
Simulation Engine (Sandbox Examination of Malware - Flow Through)
DLL Threat Inspection (Nixes DLL threats)

So as you can see, saying it relies 'too much' on the cloud does a disservice to what it actually does. It's wrapping all of these engines (and a few more) within a single product. Which is why you will see detections continue to skyrocket, and systems becoming harder and harder to infect when they are running this.

 

Sometimes it's necessary to remind the obvious:

 

Avast! performance was pretty poor for my point of view.I hoping to see better with 2015 version.

http://www.av-comparatives.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/avc_factsheet2014_08.pdf

669?? but there is more than 50,0000 malware coming out everyday.This is like a drop in the bucket!!


If you want to go to suspicious sites, just prepare to be infected anyway and make the precautions as backups and not storing anything even moderately sensitive on your machine.

I have mentioned some flaws about these tests earlier on.The usual points about static testing are:
a) the tests are carried long after the real infection took place, so it's kind of useless from today's point of view
b) the tests are carried without any context state information. Such information - if there is file named "document.doc .exe" in email, this is enough to ban the execution
c) the proactive tests are carried only with the signature engines - they don't test the other generic protection engines the products may have
d) the tests don't know anything about the relationship of the samples. If you detect the dropper, you don't have to detect the dropped binary.

 

Thanks a lot for the detailed info.
I noticed they improved dramatically in the false positive department compared to previous month-by-month surveys.
How would you compare 2015 vs 2014 in terms of 'lightness'?

 

im testing it right now. i tested 2014 pretty in depth ill report my findings in a bit, as far as avast i dropped it a while back and have not really looked back. i have been testing each version since but for me it has become a "kitchen sink" program.

 

Well that's the point with AV programs things go up and down regularly I reckon that they did go down in the start of the year because of backend issues.Lets not forget just 669 live cases in tally to the 50,0000 malware coming out everyday is like a drop in the bucket and any test these days is useless IMHO.

They did improve from version 4.8 to v5 and then till v9 and they are improving if you ever used avast in real life you would see it and real world is all that counts.Detection has dramatically gone up since the start of this month.They added alot of new filerep detection modules.I have seen some of them on my clients machine in action.

 

Oh by the way,I did the calculation.So avast missed 4% from 669 which comes up to 26 misses according to my maths.Is that a HUGE margin considering the samples are later sent to AV's after the tests are over? LOL.

 

again and again.........

Anyway, some others have another opinion:

 

I don't believe it... I think this is FUD, all companies have a vested interest in supporting these figures...

This is a dynamic test, like all tests they are not totally conclusive, but the parameters are the same for all players.

 

AFAIK trend micro never comes near top on performance tests. What lightness are you referring to. HAs trend micro become very light which I am unaware of

 

See my post #11 about Trend Micro. https://www.wilderssecurity.com/threads/trend-2015-arrives-tonight-take-a-look.368264/

If having a system taken over by adware is your thing, then Trend would would be the right direction.

 

I'm guessing you haven't used their products before they went all cloudy

 

I would call false positives worse. I have encountered very few malicious files in the last several years but a single false positive, especially on a system file, can break your entire machine.