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

Discussion in 'other anti-virus software' started by PEllis, Dec 15, 2017.

  1. PEllis

    PEllis Guest

  2. plat1098

    plat1098 Guest

    You go, Microsoft but I'll keep watching and tweaking seeing these comparatives are mainly a kaffeeklatsch (as far as I'm concerned).

    Adaware, hmmm. :rolleyes: (I'm looking due north) :)

    Edit: Just caught Symantec's CEO on national news talking about software security and home device network safety. Nice timing.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 15, 2017
  3. Trooper

    Trooper Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2005
    Posts:
    5,323
    Nice to see Emsisoft doing well. :thumb:
     
  4. Rompin Raider

    Rompin Raider Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2010
    Posts:
    1,253
    Location:
    North Texas
    A new "B" on the block...Bullguard instead of Bitdefender. ;)
     
  5. NiteRanger

    NiteRanger Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2016
    Posts:
    651
    Location:
    Far East
    ESET getting worse and worse.......:(
     
  6. daman1

    daman1 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2009
    Posts:
    1,292
    Location:
    USA, MICHIGAN
    I'll stick with tried and true, My paid sub. of BD :thumb:
     
  7. FanJ

    FanJ Updates Team

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2002
    Posts:
    4,333
    Hi NiteRanger,

    Am I seeing things not right? (which could very well be possible!!).

    ESET:

    Oct:
    blocked 98,4 %
    compromised 1,6 %
    false positives 0

    Nov:
    blocked 98,9 %
    compromised 0,8 %
    user dependent 0,3 %
    false positives 0

    That looks to me as a bit better score in Nov than in Oct.
    BTW: I guess that "user dependent" points to PUA. (PUA detection being not on by default, and AV-C is testing with default settings).
     
  8. Diazruanova

    Diazruanova Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2008
    Posts:
    63
    But as far as I know, it has the BitDefender engine!
     
  9. Minimalist

    Minimalist Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2014
    Posts:
    14,756
    Location:
    Slovenia, EU
    If I speculate I would say it's a zoom level that's causing confusion. Setting it to 0-100% shows "right" comparison. Most AVs perform with similar score and IMO negligible difference in detection.
     
  10. Spartan

    Spartan Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2016
    Posts:
    1,295
    Location:
    Dubai
    regardless, all AVs are tested with default settings not just ESET so it's very disappointing that they are always towards the worst contenders in that list. It makes it hard for me to recommend when I show people these kinda results. All other AVs were tested using default settings so that's not an excuse.

    @Marcos
     
  11. Marcos

    Marcos Eset Staff Account

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2002
    Posts:
    14,454
    I often have a temptation to make a contest in our forum and give a prize to those who have got infected with the latest version of ESET installed provided that no protection features were disabled, the product was not misconfigured and the OS had all security patches installed and all user accounts had a strong password set to prevent attackers from remoting in via RDP and disabling the antivirus.
    I wonder if there is anybody in this forum who got infected in spite of that.
     
  12. Spartan

    Spartan Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2016
    Posts:
    1,295
    Location:
    Dubai
    you are 100% right, I never got infected in the past 10 years that I've been using NOD32. I guess I should just shut up now. Thanks
     
  13. Minimalist

    Minimalist Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2014
    Posts:
    14,756
    Location:
    Slovenia, EU
    Never got infected when I used Eset, other AVs or no AV at all. To me it just means that safe computing can go a long way.
     
  14. Infected

    Infected Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2015
    Posts:
    1,113
    :thumb::thumb::thumb: Exactly, I have it installed on my mom's laptop, no infections in the 5 years she's been using it.
     
  15. TonyW

    TonyW Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2005
    Posts:
    2,741
    Location:
    UK
    I struggle sometimes to understand what people mean when they say they've had no infections in x amount of time with whatever anti-malware product they're using. I have raised this before but I think we need to be clear on what is meant by having experienced no infections. Do we mean the product, whichever one it is, has alerted the user to a possible infection, therefore, preventing it, or the product has not given any alerts during normal use leading to the assumption one is not infected?

    For example, I routinely scan with a number of products but none ever alert to anything on my machine; I could say I've not been infected not because of the AV of choice being used but more to do with what I do online.
     
  16. Antarctica

    Antarctica Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2003
    Posts:
    2,124
    Location:
    Canada
    I fully agree with you, the last time I was infected with a virus was with Windows 98! Since then nothing not even a alert. That's why since 2-3 years now I am not using any AV, just VS and AppGuard. Scanning from time to time with HitmanPro.
     
  17. anon

    anon Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2012
    Posts:
    7,405
  18. Socio

    Socio Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2004
    Posts:
    361
    I have not seen much on Bullguard, seems to be seldom talked about but looks like the new king, I am going to have to research this product a bit more.
     
  19. Osaban

    Osaban Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2005
    Posts:
    5,505
    Location:
    Milan and Seoul
    I also agree with your thoughts, being clean for years doesn't necessarily mean the AV in use is doing a great job. It depends on the internet environment, I've had dangerous situations whereby the AVs I used were definitely catching a lot of viruses, and some AVs were better than others. It is also true that most AVs nowadays are doing a good job, although I would steer away from the ones with lots of false positives...
     
    Last edited: Dec 16, 2017
  20. itman

    itman Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2010
    Posts:
    8,520
    Location:
    U.S.A.
    :thumb:
     
  21. guest

    guest Guest

    +1
     
  22. anon

    anon Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2012
    Posts:
    7,405
  23. ance

    ance formerly: fmon

    Joined:
    May 5, 2013
    Posts:
    1,359
    Microsoft with 48 FP is not good for average Joe, operating system could be dead. :( Great results for other free AV except disappointing Adaware. :thumb:
     
  24. anon

    anon Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2012
    Posts:
    7,405
    FP-Secure: 132 FP !!! :argh:
     
  25. mekelek

    mekelek Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 5, 2017
    Posts:
    518
    Location:
    Hungary
    you guys should bare in mind these tests are done with absolute default settings.
    hence kaspersky having that infected rate, PUP is considered infected and PUP detection is disabled by default.
    the top5 on this test just shows that the tests were done with old samples just so a few AV has a chance.
    panda on 100% come on now.
     
  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.