AV-Comparatives: Real-World Protection Tests for June 2017 & Feb – June 2017

AV-Comparatives: Real-World Protection Test February – June 2017

http://chart.av-comparatives.org/chart1.php?chart=chart2&year=2017&month=Feb_Jun&sort=1&zoom=4

https://www.av-comparatives.org/real-world-protection-test-february-june-2017/

----------------------
AV-Comparatives: Real-World Protection Test June 2017

http://chart.av-comparatives.org/chart1.php?chart=chart2&year=2017&month=6&sort=1&zoom=4

 

Ad-Aware's score is very interesting in comparison to eScan and BitDefender for the month of June, because all three products purportedly use the same Active Virus Control component....

 

Real-World Protection Test checks url filtering, not malware execution

 

malware is also executed.

 

I was surprised at Symantec, but happy to see the results. I stopped using it when they refused to permit AVC to test.
Jerry

 

No reason to use third party AV anymore. It appears more and more so as MS strengthens its WD+Smart Screen.

 

Microsoft is in the two-star category--that's good! Now its money is where its advertising mouth is--six months ago, no way. Still keeping my standalones but fall Creators Build is going to be interesting.

Emsisoft and that dreaded four-square window, right? I know I wouldn't trust my judgement 100% of the time. Great AV though.

 

MFST

Emsisoft explanation of the "user Intervention" in EMIS and EMAM

" 'Is it merely a "fail-safe" for avoiding FPs or something more fundamental in the structure/operation/design/philosophy of EMIS/EMAM ??'

'It's design philosophy more than anything else. While computers can make decisions, automating decisions in ambiguous cases like this is not easy. For instance, we know that specific types of behavior are used by malicious software, however there are often many legitimate uses for the same behavior, so how do we tell the difference between legitimate software and malicious software? We use a number of mechanisms to do so (such as whitelisting/blacklisting digital signatures, our Anti-Malware Network, VirusTotal's API, etc) however there are a vast number of legitimate programs out there that are not digitally signed and which we don't see in order to whitelist them before our software accidentally blocks them, so rather than do so we give the user a choice of whether or not they feel a program exhibiting potentially malicious behavior is legitimate or not.' "

https://support.emsisoft.com/topic/...ed-with-trojan/?do=findComment&comment=173234

 

Yep, hawki ! But I had a dilemma or two even so, and ended up quarantining when it wasn't necessary. But from the perspective of a total ignorant (which I am extremely good at), those yellow bars mean "caution," even though it's explained in the text. Many people may not read the fine print, just look at the colorful and attention-grabbing graphs. They see yellow and it signifies "caution." Could that be a turn-off for prospective AV shoppers?

 

False positives galore...

 

@plat1098 I understand.

Just the other day I got yellow and red behavior blocker warnings during updating to this week's Opera Update, with recommendations to Quarantine. One of the descriptions of the offending behavior in the red warnings in particular was disturbing and was one I had never seen before. I ignored the warning but did not feel comfy until I got a response on The Emsisoft False Positives Forum. Their database has since been updated.

 

Still probably didn't test SmartScreen.

 

MS is looking much better. Would like to see fewer fp's though.

 

Had it not been for 3rd party AVs showing just how crappy M$ offering was, and in a most humiliating manner, it is doubtful that M$ would have felt compelled to significantly raise the bar on their product. In this scenario competition benefits the consumer/user. Just another opinion.

 

Significant difference in results from past month! Kudos to WD.All free products got ADV+.

I noticed in the june test chart.Kaspersky,Bitdefender,Vipre,Avira,Avast and avg all scored 99.7% despite what the grapth shows when sorted by value.So it makes kaspersky look greater than the rest but in reality lot of products matched Kaspersky's result.

 

... due to FPs.

1. Kaspersky: 99.7% / 1 FP
2. Bitdefender: 99.7% / 2 FP
3. Vipre: 99.7% / 2 FP
4. Avira: 99.7% / 3 FP
5. Avast: 99.7% / 4 FP
6. AVG: 99.7% / 4 FP
-----------------------

PDF, page 10~14
https://www.av-comparatives.org/real-world-protection-test-february-june-2017/

 

WD is slowly becoming a top dog in the PC security field:
http://chart.av-comparatives.org/chart1.php?chart=chart2&year=2017&month=6&sort=1&zoom=4

 

Microsoft outperformed Eset! It seems Eset has been slacking. I ran across a malicious file this week that Eset missed. I clicked on an image file, and it served me a malicious script instead. Luckily I recognized the spoofed extension. I hope they do much better in the next test.

 

* Microsoft as good as Symantec, Trend Micro, and Tencent!
* Microsoft outperformed all the rest ones!

 

I totally agree with you.

 

It looks like I should ditch Eset ... except that's it's so light and easy to use.

Is there any evidence that particular AVs are more effective against certain types of malware ?

 

Look at the MRG tests

 

That's all i run!! its fine! the rest are to bloated.

 

Boated maybe, but I actually find WD uses more resources than most of the AVs I have tried. And there have been performance tests that show the same.

 

Hmm! ok never thought of the ram part ! I've not noticed to much! second to that i like AVG, used to like Avira but slowed me down.