AV-Comparatives: Real-World Protection Test – May 2018

Discussion in 'other anti-virus software' started by anon, Jun 15, 2018.

  1. anon

    anon Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2012
    Posts:
    6,211
  2. Minimalist

    Minimalist Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2014
    Posts:
    13,215
    Location:
    Here
    Avira with perfect score :thumb:
     
  3. Spartan

    Spartan Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2016
    Posts:
    623
    Location:
    Dubai
    very surprised by how well Microsoft has been doing lately

    ESET never does well in these tests, Bitdefender, Avira, Kaspersky always take the cake and now even Microsoft is better.


    I won't renew my license with ESET in 2020 when it expires even though I am an old 10+ years customer, these test kinda disappoint me in how ESET is performing.
     
  4. ProTruckDriver

    ProTruckDriver Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2008
    Posts:
    1,175
    Location:
    "Here on Wilders"
    Way to go Avira! Perfect score. :thumb:
     
  5. itman

    itman Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2010
    Posts:
    7,910
    Location:
    U.S.A.
    Per AV-C Test Methodolgy:
    Eset scored 99.1% w/3 FPs(almost unheard of previously). The test included 227 samples and only included web URL delivered malware. Of note is Eset's PUA protection is disabled by default during installation.

    "Each to their own" as the saying goes.
     
  6. hawki

    hawki Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2008
    Posts:
    4,614
    Location:
    DC Metro Area
    Looks like Emsisoft has got its game back on :)
     
  7. IBK

    IBK AV Expert

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2003
    Posts:
    1,857
    Location:
    Innsbruck (Austria)
    @itman we do not include any PUA samples in the tests - and just to be on the safe side and avoid claims, PUA detection is activated for all.
     
  8. cruelsister

    cruelsister Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2007
    Posts:
    1,431
    Location:
    Paris
    Just curious::

    From the AV-C website: "Our Real-World Protection Test is currently the most comprehensive and complex test available";

    then, "The results are based on the test set of 227 live test cases (malicious URLs found in the field), consisting of working exploits (i.e. drive-by downloads) and URLs pointing directly to malware. Thus exactly the same infection vectors are used as a typical user would experience in everyday life".
    Should one infer that Computer Users only need to worry about web-based attacks and not to be concerned about infections spread via Networks (worms), USB, Email, FTP, etc? Or is it that the initial statement may be a tad aggressive and may lead a reader to a false conclusion?
     
  9. JohnBurns

    JohnBurns Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    Posts:
    767
    Location:
    Oklahoma City
    MS Defender just keeps hanging in there. At least I don't have to turn it off when downloading Windows Updates. That adds to my consideration in using it. I'm paranoid about Kaspersky/Russia connection, and don't like to spend money for any of them, so I'll continue using Defender I guess.
     
  10. Osaban

    Osaban Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2005
    Posts:
    4,976
    What happened to Panda? MS definitely doing very well...
     
  11. roger_m

    roger_m Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2009
    Posts:
    7,509
    https://www.av-comparatives.org/tests/real-world-protection-test-may-2018-factsheet/
     
  12. Eggnog

    Eggnog Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2012
    Posts:
    129
    Location:
    United States
    It does seem Microsoft is getting better and better.
     
  13. ArchiveX

    ArchiveX Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2014
    Posts:
    1,447
    Location:
    Land of the Light
    Good for you. ;) :thumb:
     
  14. mekelek

    mekelek Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 5, 2017
    Posts:
    514
    Location:
    Hungary
    i always like a good laugh next to my morning coffee
    tho good to see panda being in its well deserved place for once, even if this test is a joke overall
     
  15. daman1

    daman1 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2009
    Posts:
    1,288
    Location:
    USA, MICHIGAN
    Have you checked the impact score? :thumbd:
     
  16. itman

    itman Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2010
    Posts:
    7,910
    Location:
    U.S.A.
    Personally, these periodic real time tests are becoming irrelevant to me.

    In this test 14/18 products scored 99+% in detection. Then we have the distorted graphical presentation showing the 1% misses. A corresponding analogy would be I am at the race track. All the horses appear to cross the finish line together. We then have to wait for the enhanced photo finish results to determine which horse actually won.

    At least the like MRG tests will sub-divide by category what malware samples were used and what the product detection score was by each category. Finally, none of these tests show detailed statistical data on test malware prevalence; i.e. in-the-wild occurrence, or geographical distribution; i.e. worldwide or restricted to select countries.
     
    Last edited: Jun 16, 2018
  17. Minimalist

    Minimalist Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2014
    Posts:
    13,215
    Location:
    Here
    Default "zoom" level on their site is correct ( 0-100% ), which shows minimal difference in detection without "distortion". Just links on this forum are modified and try to amplify difference between protection rate. Don't know why...
     
  18. anon

    anon Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2012
    Posts:
    6,211
    The default "zoom" level on their site is "by vendor" and "0-100%"
    With above settings t's easier to read the test results, ie: detection rates, which product is better, which one is the worst?
    I don't think so.

    The 1st, 2nd, etc are always the same, whatever "zoom" level you choose.
    Just look the graph in "by value" mode, at any "zoom" level.......
     

    Attached Files:

    Last edited: Jun 16, 2018
  19. FanJ

    FanJ Updates Team

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2002
    Posts:
    3,660
    I'm now somewhat confused about PUA detection being activated for the test.

    On 15 Nov 2017 (in the thread about the Real-World Protection Test - October 2017) Marcos posted here:
    So, Marcos posted that AV-C performs tests with default settings, and in the case of ESET that means that PUA detection is off.
    And Andreas posted now that PUA detection is activated for all; so that must mean it is also activated for ESET and that is not the default setting of ESET.

    Looks to me a bit contradicting.
    Has there something been changed in the test methods in that respect between October 2017 and May 2018?
    Or is it just me who is confused now?
     
    Last edited: Jun 16, 2018
  20. IBK

    IBK AV Expert

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2003
    Posts:
    1,857
    Location:
    Innsbruck (Austria)
    @FanJ: I complained already last year to ESET about the potentially confusing statement done in a forum (and it did not match the feedback we received).
     
  21. Azure Phoenix

    Azure Phoenix Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2014
    Posts:
    1,154
    Just to clarify.

    @IBK

    You enabled both potentially unwanted application And potentially unsafe application detection for ESET? Correct?
     
  22. itman

    itman Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2010
    Posts:
    7,910
    Location:
    U.S.A.
    A few other comments about AV lab testing of Eset.

    It must be verified that LiveGrid, Eset's reputational scanner, is fully functional. The procedure for doing so is here: https://support.eset.com/kb5552/?intcmp="KBCJ_3418_LiveGrid" . This is especially critical in the latest 11.1.54 version since there have been major changes and enhancements to its processing methods.

    In regards to PUA detection, note that Eset not only uses it to detect like executable download, installation, or startup. PUA detection is also used to detect suspicious code in scripts, etc. in regards to abuse of trusted system processes increasingly being used by malware developers.
     
  23. Spartan

    Spartan Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2016
    Posts:
    623
    Location:
    Dubai
    IMO ESET Must enable PUP and potentially unsafe application detection by default. A lot of rookie users just blindly hit NEXT when installing anything and would miss out on the extra protection that ESET *can* provide. Very bad idea to keep it sa disabled by default. Just my 2 cents
     
  24. xxJackxx

    xxJackxx Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2008
    Posts:
    5,504
    Location:
    USA
    As an IT Manager I know that I fear email more than anything else. I have users that will open anything because they think it might be from a customer. So yes, I feel that the focus on malicious URLs is misleading.
     
  25. Hiltihome

    Hiltihome Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2013
    Posts:
    896
    Location:
    Baden Germany
    Serious question:
    What is such a test good for?

    Yesterday two customer machines came in for cleaning.
    One was running WIN7, the other Win10.
    Both had Avira installed.
    Both where unusable.
    A DNS-changer and more on the the WIN7, two scarewares on the WIN10.

    On the WIN7 machine I run ZAM, and the DNS-changer was gone.
    On the WIN10 machine I uninstalled Avira, activated Defender and applied the PUP.reg, and the scareware was gone.
     
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.