Discussion in 'other anti-virus software' started by PEllis, Nov 15, 2017.
Mmmh, Panda is doing quite good again
but how can it be possible? mediocre signatures and crap behavior blocker again zero day malware. I believe that their ransomware-protection is just included in Internet Security, but tested version is the free version.
Panda, Tencent and Vipre with perfect score. Didn't expect that.
Also using 0-100% zoom gives more accurate representation of difference between products.
Avira continues to impress negatively = Position: 13rd out of 21 products.
ESET getting worse and worse
shocking, with all the awesome technologies they have
Panda flawless scoring, L M A O.
Tencent has been doing well on all tests so far, tho I'm not sure who wants a chinese backdoor on his pc.
this test must have been about old samples since all Bitdefender engine using AV scored perfect.
except Emsisoft, now how does that work ...
There were few CoinMiners in the test. These had been detected as potentially unsafe applications which are disabled by default and users enable detection at their discretion. AVC performs tests with default settings which is why these CoinMiners were "missed". After the test we reclassified them to trojans.
Thanks for explaining.
1. Will all "CoinMiners" from now on be classified as Trojans?
2. What would have been the score in this test if those "CoinMiners" were already beforehand classified as Trojans? Meaning: were there other samples missed?
Panda and VIPRE
Windows Defender and user dependent protection?
I don't like test results without
good to know again . i am using panda global and it is very light too. glad to know it is also very effective
Sure it is. I just bought two more years worth of ESET Internet Non-Security recently.
surely smartscreen, so basically this can be interpreted both as a fail or pass depending the user.
Smartscreen may also be responsible for the higher False Positive rate, WD used to have none before.
Thank you for the explanation sir. May I suggest that ESET puts this option to enabled by default. I know that many non tech savvy people just hit NEXT, NEXT, NEXT while installing software and might miss this option.
It's quite unlikely as they are usually legitimate applications that are unfortunately sometimes installed also without user's knowledge and consent. However, there's a chance that they will be reclassified to potentially unwanted applications.
If CoinMiners were to be reclassified to potentially unwanted applications, the detection could not be enabled by default as PUA detection requires user's consent mainly for legal reasons.
By the way, it's not possible to miss that option and just go through the whole installation by clicking Next -> Next,... On the PUA detection setup screen, the user must select the desired option from a drop-down menu.
Agreed. Hope this is just a temporary thing.
EDIT: Thank you Marcos for the explanation.
Interesting, after all this time to see the main ones are still in the 1-2% range of one and other. Moral of the story is tho no matter what you choose you will be with in the margin of error with the exception of a very few.
You have a point, one MUST select what he wants so no room for clicking NEXT NEXT NEXT, thanks for the clarification
I will say about enabling the PUA option at Eset installation time. I believe that only applies to fresh installs. The PUA has always been checked marked on any upgrade installation I have done. Most likely due to it having been already enabled prior to upgrade time.
Nice job McAfee seem to be moving up, hopefully the progress they are making with their cloud technologies continues to help it increase it's detection rate.
Separate names with a comma.