AV-Comparatives: Real World Protection Test - July 2016

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

  1. anon

    anon Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2012
    Posts:
    4,097
  2. Secondmineboy

    Secondmineboy Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2016
    Posts:
    85
    Location:
    Germany
    How the heck did AVG get 100 Percent?
     
  3. anon

    anon Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2012
    Posts:
    4,097
  4. entropism

    entropism Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2004
    Posts:
    331
    AVG detection has been pretty spectacular for the past 6-12 months. It's the rest of the program that has massive issues.

    Eset and Avast kicked it up on this test. Makes them intriguing options again (for me), especially with how light Avast is these days.
     
  5. true indian

    true indian Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2012
    Posts:
    757
    Location:
    india
    Lavasoft on top!?
     
  6. anon

    anon Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2012
    Posts:
    4,097
    Lavasoft (3rd party Engine: Bitdefender) ;)
    http://www.av-comparatives.org/av-vendors/

     
  7. haakon

    haakon Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 25, 2015
    Posts:
    767
    Location:
    SW USA
    Apparently they've been doing a better job with integrating the Bitdefender Core, B-HAV and AVC SDKs, among other BD components, into their Lavasoft product. (This is still a dual-engine product.) No doubt they've improved their Companion look-ups product as well, perhaps integrating BD's Nimbus servers.

    Once again, another useless effort at dispelling the mythology:
    "Bitdefender engine" does not equal Bitdefender.
    Well, unless you prefer to sound like you're still in the previous decade. ;) When BD Core was the engine.
     
  8. anon

    anon Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2012
    Posts:
    4,097
    I don't prefer anything. ;)
    Just I wrote what the link says: Lavasoft (3rd party Engine: Bitdefender)
    http://www.av-comparatives.org/av-vendors/
     

    Attached Files:

    • AVC.jpg
      AVC.jpg
      File size:
      191.4 KB
      Views:
      14
  9. entropism

    entropism Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2004
    Posts:
    331
    I find that people who like BitDefender REALLY like bitdefender, and are very, very defensive when you mention other AVs use their engine. Like they had a vested stake in them being "the best". It's a really odd phenomenon.
     
  10. Nightwalker

    Nightwalker Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2008
    Posts:
    784
    There arent many people like that, but they sure are very vocal.
     
  11. haakon

    haakon Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 25, 2015
    Posts:
    767
    Location:
    SW USA
    "i reads it on teh webbuhnetz what it is so thats it is"

    The use of the word engine on the av-comp page is obsolete (and as many might opine, so is the testing), it should read Third Party SDK or more accurately Partner.

    It should also be noted that for Checkpoint, Kaspersky engine does not equal Kaspersky. Etc. etc. etc.

    Fortunately I'm not one of the people who are very, very defensive about third-party SDK proliferation. Thank you for presenting the opportunity to point that out. My post #7 lauds Lavasoft for their success with the BD SDKs. And it's about time.

    I'm very vocal about the use of obsolete or improper terminology within a technical construct. As much as anyone would be about the use of "carburetor" in discussions of late model induction systems in superbike forums.

    It's so sad that in this technical venue, everyone thinks like... carburetor.

    I don't REALLY like Bitdefender, except I picked up a 3-PC Internet Security license for $20 when I was shopping around a few months ago. Could've been Avira. Next year I'll shop again. Could be AVG. (I've personally used BD off and on and supported it in the enterprise for ~15 years, so given similar price points, I'll always go with it.)

    What I don't like are locks, alarm systems, guards, checkpoints...

    What I don't like is my "smart" phone Caller ID can show a local number and it's some slime bag somewhere on the globe trying to scam me. I pay $70 a month for that.

    In fact, I don't like any AV or suite or "companion protection."

    But, all those are life.

    SDK! Get it right, for crying out loud. :) Unless you're talking about a specific engine itself, i.e bdcore.dll, avccore.dll, ascore.dll, each the base of their respective carburetor. Uh, SDK.
     
    Last edited: Aug 16, 2016
  12. Ibrad

    Ibrad Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2009
    Posts:
    1,949
    I'm really surprised Emsisoft had so many user dependents compared to other Bitdefender SDK products. I am curious what they are doing different, or if other products have moved to using the Bitdefender Cloud, etc.
     
  13. Rompin Raider

    Rompin Raider Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2010
    Posts:
    1,228
    Location:
    North Texas
    Thanks anon....:)
     
  14. TonyW

    TonyW Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2005
    Posts:
    2,634
    Location:
    UK
    Why aren't they using the correct term 'SDK'? Any contributions to make on this, @IBK?
     
  15. Impet

    Impet Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 5, 2013
    Posts:
    896
    ... but the free Lavasoft doesn't use Bitdefender core/engine? :doubt:
     
  16. hawki

    hawki Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2008
    Posts:
    1,957
    Location:
    DC Metro Area
    EMIS uses it's own behavior blocker. Nor sure about it's on access File Guard. I believe that EMIS only uses BD for on demand scanning.

    User dependent doesn't bother me, given it's 100% detection rate. The pop-up warning usually gives a clear reccomendation.

    I am more concerned about false positives.

    Not sure how AVC defines a FP. I often see a file detected during a scan, but described as "No Risk." Wondering if AVC counts those as FPs. The past several months EMIS has had 100% detections, whith user intervevtions, but high FPs.
     
  17. TonyW

    TonyW Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2005
    Posts:
    2,634
    Location:
    UK
    I thought Emsisoft AM/IS uses a dual-scanner, that is, BD and their own.
     
  18. m0unds

    m0unds Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2015
    Posts:
    106
    Emsisoft's behavior blocker will query the user for action under certain circumstances. examples can be seen in the december 2015 summary report (http://www.av-comparatives.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/avc_sum_201512_en.pdf) from av-c.
     
  19. roger_m

    roger_m Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2009
    Posts:
    5,248
    It does. They switched from Vipre to Bitdefender a long time ago.

    http://www.lavasoft.com/products/compare.php
     
  20. russ0408

    russ0408 Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 16, 2010
    Posts:
    28
    Location:
    On. Canada
    Nice to see Windows Defender coming on strong.
     
  21. Macstorm

    Macstorm Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2005
    Posts:
    2,531
    Location:
    Sneffels volcano
    Yep, and that's bad news for 3rd party av lovers...
     
  22. entropism

    entropism Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2004
    Posts:
    331
    Until you look at the performance tests... I am glad Defender is doing well simply because the tech illiterate will now have a decent defense against crap in the wild. I'd still never put it on my machines.
     
  23. Osaban

    Osaban Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2005
    Posts:
    4,222
    I can appreciate WD improving its detection potential, it is indeed acceptable if one has other layers (in my case Sandboxie for example), but the problem IMO is its impact on performance, you would think being embedded with Windows it should be light as a feather, but it is not really, at least on my fast computer.

    I have time and again had the opportunity to see the difference between my choice in my signature and WD on its own: very noticeable. Now I'm not saying that WD slows the computer to the point of being unacceptable, but I like a fast OS, probably my first priority...
     
  24. roger_m

    roger_m Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2009
    Posts:
    5,248
    That's my experience too, on many computers. After reading some of the comments here in the last 6 months or so, it has become apparent that Windows Defender is actually a good antivirus. But it causes too much of a system impact for me to use it. I also agree that WD should be lighter since it comes with Windows. It's a shame it's not.
     
  25. Macstorm

    Macstorm Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2005
    Posts:
    2,531
    Location:
    Sneffels volcano
    Hi Osaban. One of the reasons of my choice for WD is precisely its 'lightness' on my old computer (on par with Avira, Kaspersky and others, in my experience) BUT much more 'unobtrusive' than the others, no notifications, no toolbars, no launchers, no surprises...

    Now, performance wise, no solution can beat Emsisoft AM on my rig, and I'm sure about it after having tried almost every av out there through years. Still, I put full confidence in WD on Windows 10.
     
    Last edited: Sep 2, 2016
Loading...