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

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

  1. PEllis

    PEllis Guest

  2. Antarctica

    Antarctica Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2003
    Posts:
    1,965
    Location:
    Canada
  3. amico81

    amico81 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2017
    Posts:
    97
    Location:
    Germany
    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.
     
  4. Minimalist

    Minimalist Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2014
    Posts:
    14,382
    Location:
    Slovenia
    Panda, Tencent and Vipre with perfect score. Didn't expect that.
    Also using 0-100% zoom gives more accurate representation of difference between products.
     
  5. anon

    anon Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2012
    Posts:
    6,748
    Avira continues to impress negatively = Position: 13rd out of 21 products.
     
  6. NiteRanger

    NiteRanger Registered Member

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

    Spartan Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2016
    Posts:
    1,042
    Location:
    Dubai
    shocking, with all the awesome technologies they have
     
  8. mekelek

    mekelek Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 5, 2017
    Posts:
    518
    Location:
    Hungary
    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 ...
     
  9. Marcos

    Marcos Eset Staff Account

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2002
    Posts:
    14,441
    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.
     
  10. FanJ

    FanJ Updates Team

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2002
    Posts:
    3,906
    Thanks for explaining.
    Some questions:
    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?
     
  11. ArchiveX

    ArchiveX Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2014
    Posts:
    1,464
    Location:
    Land of the Light
    Panda and VIPRE :thumb:
     
  12. ance

    ance formerly: fmon

    Joined:
    May 5, 2013
    Posts:
    1,359
    Windows Defender and user dependent protection? o_O
     
  13. amico81

    amico81 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2017
    Posts:
    97
    Location:
    Germany
    I don't like test results without
    transparency
     
  14. gery

    gery Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2008
    Posts:
    2,140
    good to know again . i am using panda global and it is very light too. glad to know it is also very effective
     
  15. kdcdq

    kdcdq Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2002
    Posts:
    815
    Location:
    A Non-Sh*thole State
    Sure it is. I just bought two more years worth of ESET Internet Non-Security recently. :'(
     
  16. guest

    guest Guest

    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.
     
  17. Spartan

    Spartan Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2016
    Posts:
    1,042
    Location:
    Dubai
    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.
     
  18. Marcos

    Marcos Eset Staff Account

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2002
    Posts:
    14,441
    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.
     
    Last edited: Nov 17, 2017
  19. Marcos

    Marcos Eset Staff Account

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2002
    Posts:
    14,441
    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.
     
  20. Trooper

    Trooper Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2005
    Posts:
    4,797
    Agreed. Hope this is just a temporary thing.

    EDIT: Thank you Marcos for the explanation.
     
  21. Fajo

    Fajo Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2008
    Posts:
    1,814
    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.
     
    Last edited: Nov 16, 2017
  22. Spartan

    Spartan Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2016
    Posts:
    1,042
    Location:
    Dubai
    You have a point, one MUST select what he wants so no room for clicking NEXT NEXT NEXT, thanks for the clarification
     
  23. itman

    itman Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2010
    Posts:
    8,394
    Location:
    U.S.A.
    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.
     
  24. Ibrad

    Ibrad Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2009
    Posts:
    1,970
    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.
     
  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.