AV-Comparatives: Real World Protection Test February 2016

Discussion in 'other anti-virus software' started by anon, Mar 16, 2016.

  1. anon

    anon Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2012
    Posts:
    4,087
    AV-Comparatives: Real World Protection Test February 2016
    http://chart.av-comparatives.org/chart1.php?chart=chart2&year=2016&month=2&sort=1&zoom=3

    http://www.av-comparatives.org/dynamic-tests/

    ---------------------------
    1. A great improvement for ThreatTrack Vipre, the usual results for the rest.
    2. Microsoft Security Essentials 4.8 is in the test list now.
     
    Last edited: Mar 16, 2016
  2. Thankful

    Thankful Savings Monitor

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2005
    Posts:
    3,731
    Location:
    New York City
  3. amarildojr

    amarildojr Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2013
    Posts:
    1,964
    Location:
    Brasil
    Why do they use the Free edition of Avast! instead of the Internet Security?
     
  4. LagerX

    LagerX Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2008
    Posts:
    540
    I believe avast! specifically requested that. Also, these products share same anti-malware engine, so there would not be any difference.
     
  5. oliverjia

    oliverjia Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2005
    Posts:
    1,517
    100% detection rate again and again? Come on now.
     
  6. garrett76

    garrett76 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2014
    Posts:
    210
    where is Panda?
     
  7. amarildojr

    amarildojr Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2013
    Posts:
    1,964
    Location:
    Brasil
    There wouldn't be a difference in the detection test, but IIRC their RWT involves more than just detection.
     
  8. ProTruckDriver

    ProTruckDriver Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2008
    Posts:
    768
    Location:
    "Here on Wilders"
    Yeah, I've noticed that too. Hmm :rolleyes:
     
  9. phalanaxus

    phalanaxus Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2011
    Posts:
    499
    There is nothing confusing or wrong about 100% detection on this case. They only tested about 394 "widely spread" malware, downloading from their original links. 100% is quite achievable here.
     
  10. oliverjia

    oliverjia Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2005
    Posts:
    1,517
    Yes nothing wrong with the test itself. Big mistake when the test was called "Real World Test". "Widely Spread" is not equal to "Real World", unfortunately. Maybe they should change the name of the test.
    The real "real world test" would be at least to expose the test computer to the darkest corner of the Internet for 6-12 months - download and run any suspicious email attachments; download and run any suspicious installers they could find, etc, then see how the detection rate looks like. That's called "real world test". Otherwise, it's confusing and misleading.
     
  11. phalanaxus

    phalanaxus Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2011
    Posts:
    499
    The name can be changed to something else like total protection or something similar, still 394 is probably quite more from what an average user would encounter (especially barring adware as it is the case with this test) in regular use.
    P.S. I would still like more samples and addition of greyware.
     
  12. entropism

    entropism Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2004
    Posts:
    322
    Yeesh, I just dropped F-Secure for Webroot out of boredom, I might just have to switch back. I do love me some Webroot though...
     
  13. tgell

    tgell Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2004
    Posts:
    1,073
    What happened to the Microsoft Security Essentials baseline?

    Never Mind, I missed the Microsoft bar.
     
  14. Sherlock_Holmes

    Sherlock_Holmes Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2010
    Posts:
    1,447
    Location:
    Mumbai
    Emsisoft with 3.5% user dependant :eek:
     
  15. Charyb

    Charyb Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2013
    Posts:
    552
    Surprised by Vipre.
     
    Last edited: Mar 16, 2016
  16. Osaban

    Osaban Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2005
    Posts:
    4,214
    The 'inevitable' Kaspersky...
     
  17. ArchiveX

    ArchiveX Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2014
    Posts:
    1,015
    :thumb:
     
  18. daman1

    daman1 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2009
    Posts:
    758
    Location:
    MICHIGAN,USA
    If they would add a ramsomware protection then you would have something.
     
  19. Impet

    Impet Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 5, 2013
    Posts:
    894
    Well done AVG, Sophos and McAfee could be better ... :(
     
  20. tgell

    tgell Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2004
    Posts:
    1,073
    For all the hype avast gives to their AV regarding Nx, DeepScreen, Evo-Gen, etc, it doesn't look like it's helping much.
     
  21. Impet

    Impet Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 5, 2013
    Posts:
    894
    ... but it has more shields than any other AV. :rolleyes:
     
  22. hawki

    hawki Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2008
    Posts:
    1,954
    Location:
    DC Metro Area
    Yeah that was a bit surprising. I suspect It may have something to do with the "Exploit Protection"/dropper blocker in EMIS 11.

    The Behavior Blocker in EMIS protects against unknown executables performing potentially malicious actions by alerting the user and giving them the option to allow, block, or quarantine the executable.

    In any event, I believe that though labled as "User Dependant" the warning choice box will typically recommended taking action to block/quarantine it,which is the proper option unless the user knows the exe. to be OK.
     
  23. Fly

    Fly Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2007
    Posts:
    2,069
    Why is Eset's score so low ? Not for the first time. I like it, but this ...
     
  24. Secondmineboy

    Secondmineboy Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2016
    Posts:
    83
    Location:
    Germany
    Ransomware Protection is included since their 2013 or 2014 series.

    Theyre currently working on reducing the user dependent alerts.
     
  25. itman

    itman Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2010
    Posts:
    2,969
    Location:
    U.S.A.
    As always, AVC graphs are exaggerated. I wouldn't call 97% score "low."

    That said, AVC didn't give a lot of details as to what "a miss" is. Was it a compromised system or was it a failure to detect the malicious download or URL by Eset's browser protection?
     
Loading...