AV-Comparatives: Real-World Protection Test Jul-Aug 2019

Discussion in 'other anti-virus software' started by anon, Sep 16, 2019.

  1. anon

    anon Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2012
    Posts:
    5,941
  2. anon

    anon Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2012
    Posts:
    5,941
    As usual, Microsoft Windows Defender: False Positives = 39...……

    Kaspersky: Blocked 99.1% …...
    F-Secure: Blocked 98.6% / FP: 17…...
     
    Last edited: Sep 16, 2019
  3. xxJackxx

    xxJackxx Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2008
    Posts:
    5,282
    Location:
    USA
    Looks like Bitdefender is the only perfect score. I may have to give it a run to see how it is these days.
     
  4. darts

    darts Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2009
    Posts:
    438
    Location:
    Netherlands
    Too bad Eset scores that bad , i hope they wi’ll get on top again!!
     
  5. Minimalist

    Minimalist Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2014
    Posts:
    12,403
    Location:
    Here
    Bitdefender, Avira and Symantec got 100% with zero or little FPs. :thumb:
     
  6. Spartan

    Spartan Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2016
    Posts:
    460
    Location:
    Dubai
    Very disappointed with F-Secure results, not the false positives those I can deal with but the protection rate is towards the end of the chart like ESET
     
  7. itman

    itman Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2010
    Posts:
    7,721
    Location:
    U.S.A.
    Also with a FP rate >10%, I really believe that the block-at-first-sight probability threshold has been cranked up to 90% from the default 80% setting.
     
  8. Buddel

    Buddel Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2015
    Posts:
    1,063
    Good enough for me.:)
     
  9. anon

    anon Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2012
    Posts:
    5,941
    Feb-May test: Kaspersky = 1st
    Jul-Aug test: Kaspersky = 12th :D
     
  10. Firecat

    Firecat Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2005
    Posts:
    8,156
    Location:
    The land of no identity :D
    The 2020 version is vastly improved but still has some classic BitDefender bugs, unfortunately.
     
  11. Buddel

    Buddel Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2015
    Posts:
    1,063
    ... and 1st again next time.:cool:
     
  12. roger_m

    roger_m Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2009
    Posts:
    7,339
    The new 2020 version is receiving a lot of positive feedback. It's a lot less buggy than previous versions, but a minority of people (myself included) have still found it to be buggy. One issue with it these days, is that they are a bit slow to add signatures for new threats.
    A score of 98.3% is decent and ESET is almost always one of the first antiviruses to add signatures for new threats. Also, you can tweak ESET to give better proactive protection, while still remaining very light.
    https://malwaretips.com/threads/configure-eset-antivirus-for-maximum-security-by-roboman.86348/
     
  13. lodore

    lodore Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2006
    Posts:
    9,062
    F-secure always seems to score high Fp but That hasn't been my experience with it. I had one Fp with f-secure and it was fixed the same day. I have yet to see a single fp from defender. Last time I used Norton it was almost all FP when it flagged everything it didn't know as malicious.
     
  14. Azure Phoenix

    Azure Phoenix Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2014
    Posts:
    1,000
    FPs due to the download insight?
     
  15. lodore

    lodore Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2006
    Posts:
    9,062
    Yup is it still as aggressive as it used to be?
     
  16. Azure Phoenix

    Azure Phoenix Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2014
    Posts:
    1,000
    Don't know. I haven't used Norton in a long while.
     
  17. Pat MacKnife

    Pat MacKnife Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2014
    Posts:
    519
    Location:
    Belgium
    Woohoo Microsoft Windows Defender 100 % (don't care about the FP) :)
     
  18. mekelek

    mekelek Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 5, 2017
    Posts:
    513
    Location:
    Hungary
    that % is solely dependent on how many PUPs they throw at the AVs.
     
  19. acr1965

    acr1965 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2006
    Posts:
    4,986
    Is this test with the Windows Defender anti ransomware enabled? Mine says "No action needed" but when I go to the 'Manage Ransomware Protection' the 'Controlled folder access' is not enabled. So I'm not sure if mine's running or not. But anyway, was the test with the 'Controlled folder access' enabled?
     
  20. L0ckJaw

    L0ckJaw Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2019
    Posts:
    6
    Location:
    Netherlands
    No its not aggressive anymore, very light and awesome detection rate.
     
  21. ance

    ance formerly: fmon

    Joined:
    May 5, 2013
    Posts:
    1,298
    Microsoft blocked 100 % - good enough for me. :D
     
  22. mekelek

    mekelek Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 5, 2017
    Posts:
    513
    Location:
    Hungary
    no, microsoft blocked 230%
     
  23. bellgamin

    bellgamin Very Frequent Poster

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2002
    Posts:
    6,673
    Location:
    Hawaii
    No, Microsoft blocked MORE than 100% because it blocked a lot of stuff that was not malware. Thus, Microsoft blocked 100% malware plus, say, *10%* NON-malware = 110% effectiveness. o_O

    In fact, that way-too-high FP rate isn't "effectiveness" -- it's better defined as "grossly misleading AV tactics". :rolleyes:
     
  24. Firecat

    Firecat Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2005
    Posts:
    8,156
    Location:
    The land of no identity :D
    Don't want to give any ideas to lurking potential malware authors, but considering Windows Defender loses a lot of it's effectiveness in the absence of an internet connection, there is quite a real scenario here.
     
  25. itman

    itman Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2010
    Posts:
    7,721
    Location:
    U.S.A.
    Unless the AV lab finds and uses a downloadable malware sample that disables the network connection, it will never be shown that this is a real and know occurrence.
     
Loading...
  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.