Discussion in 'other anti-virus software' started by anon, Jun 17, 2019.
Certainly not with WD,
but with AVs starting with capital A, A, A, M, S...
Yeah, I really doubt that Windows Defender will have a false positive that would brick a machine, it can happen but it certainly has much lower chances than third party solutions.
False positives with Windows Defender is a overrated problem, just think how many machines are using Windows 10 with WD nowadays without a issue.
Btw, another third party antivirus breaking Firefox:
Back then, Norton marked system related files as FPs and quarantined them causing the OS to not even boot anymore.
Yeah, I remember them taking out a lot of Chinese users with that exact situation. I believe Kaspersky at one point had a similar experience.
I dont remember this with Kaspersky, but Avira/Panda/Bitdefender/Webroot had some catastrophic false positives and bricks (Firefox breaking too).
I was using it at the time. It's been a while Fortunately they fixed it quickly and I missed the bad definition altogether. I've also had a couple of other products destroy a Windows install. I'll name Outpost Security Suite as it does not exist anymore. I won't name the other one. Everyone gets a turn I guess. Most of them have issues at some point. I guess my main point is that I have had more issues caused by AV/security suites than by actual malware. That said, I don't want to sound too harsh. Making AV cannot be an easy task.
Yes, I agree that making good one is not easy.
Is there any transparency which features of the AV suites were used and whether they are differenciating between free and premium features.
Are they activating (and buying) everything?
Ridiculous, plus don't forget that they also failed to auto-block 3 malware samples. I don't care about how unpopular these apps were that were wrongly flagged. Because with so many false positives, you might start to ignore warnings.
Which clearly demonstrates what happens when "block-at-first-sight" is non-applicable or set to normal settings. WD's off-line detection rate was 68.5% and on-line detection rate was 88.3%.
all consumer tests are done with default/normal settings - WD was NOT set to aggressive.
WD protection rate of 99.98% combined with low false positives made it one of the best of the test suite.
It has major issues with false positives. There were 74.
Also this thread is about the latest A-V C Realtime test; not the more comprehensive 2019 Malware Protection test.
WD had 74 FPs in the latest A-V C Realtime test.
I believe there is a misunderstanding on what "user dependent" means in this test. It means the system was compromised.
Per A-V C methodology:
That's why I don't care for tests as there methodology is all over the place. (And yes all AV testers) I'm not picking on AV-C but all testers.
It is included in each report ( it is not "all over the place", but repeated on several places to make sure that people who care about details can find it).
I beg to differ amongst all AV testing groups and as I said it's not just AV-C. I personally don't care for any of them.
A poll is better suited for running popularity contests.