Discussion in 'other anti-virus software' started by Thankful, Oct 15, 2018.
Microsoft is FP winner for third month in the row.
It is also the cheapest (free) and blocked 100% of the threats. It wins everything.
Right you are I'd rather the false positives which I can exclude (not that I've personally ever had too) than be compromised, it did a better job than Avira
The undisputed champion of AV-Comparatives, who could guess that ?
On a serious note, if it wasnt for those false positives and the high system impact, Microsoft/Windows Defender could have been nominated the "Product of the Year" considerating AV-Comparatives criteria.
A bit puzzling is both Bullguard's and Panda's current scoring in that both scored 100% in the August test.
Again as I previously stated, test results need to be averaged over both time and by AV lab.
I agree with this. I would switch but Windows Defender kills the performance of my desktop. Also, it seems crazy to me that they have so many false positives. It seems like Microsoft would be the last company with a false positive problem. I guess I will be sticking with Emsisoft. They offer good protection along with great support and seemingly good privacy practices. Works for me.
Well done Microsoft, what happened to Panda?
Panda Free version 18.5, ehhhh
That's true, even though false positives are a problem, getting comprised is even worse. I'm surprised to see that so many big names failed.
Microsoft's FP rate is absurd. It's amazing to read all the Microsoft apologists who are trying to rationalize an FP rate that is FAR beyond acceptable. If a beat cop pulled in that high percentage of bad collars, he or she would be canned. How high an FP rate will the apologists accept I wonder -- 20% 50% 70%? Where do the apologists draw the line? Obviously, the line will be drawn at whatever point allows the apologists to crown Microsoft as "the winner". Gooood grief!
The issue of false positives can be a mixed bag. There are users who say they've never encountered a FP with the product of their choice. This is possible because they don't have obscure or lesser known programs on their systems. Yes, a product should be able to tell the difference but signatures can and do misfire. The less, the better, of course, and zero FPs has to be the goal.
While it isn't connected to the Real-World Protection Test, the False Alarm Test for September 2018 sheds some light on what type of files were marked as FPs at the time of that particular test. By the time anyone reads the test results, vendors who were impacted should have corrected their erroneous detections as it's my understanding these false alarms get reported to the vendors concerned.
Looking through the list of files wrongly detected by various vendors, there are many I've not heard of, let alone have installed on my system.
I've been using WD on one my machine since I upgraded to W10. Never had a single FP. On the contrary, I was getting at least 1 FP per month when I used one of the famous AVs. But then again, your mileage may vary
I think what we are seeing on WD's front is Microsoft's increased use of its cloud component. It has definitely helped it in its detection capabilities, but it has also increased it's FP rate. Look, no one is forcing you, or anyone else to use WD. If you like it, great, if you don't, that's fine, but this constant bickering back and forth regarding WD really needs to stop. Like it or not, Microsoft has made some great strides in improving WD from where it was before, is it perfect? no, will it ever be? probably not, but it's not as bad as it's made out to be. Truth be told, no product is perfect and one should always practice safe habits regardless of which program they use, or you will pay the price one day.
I too have been using it for a while now and have not had any issues with false positives. You also make a very good point that if you take the time to look at what was flagged as a false positive, I have never heard of any of those programs or companies either. Does this make it ok? no, but I don't think its as big of an issue as some make it out to be. Lets be fair here, Norton had a good FP rating during these test, but it still flagged Fortnite as malware not long ago.
I've never had a FP when ever I used WD but plenty with Norton.
Me neither. People just love to complain, I guess it's in their nature..
It might be a bit premature for me to say that WD hasn't produced any FP in two weeks of operation, therefore it is safe, but I'm impressed so far about its performance, particularly in relation to system impact. I guess that if FPs may occur, they are not likely to be critical to the OS, any other FPs can be a hassle but nothing too serious. Only time will tell...
Your first post in this forum begins with name-callling. "Bickering" is defined by Merriam-Webster's as petty quarreling in a childish manner. To wit, "bickering" is an insulting word for someone to apply to honest disagreements & differing interpretations of test data.
This thread gives the results of tests by AV-C. The comments in this thread obviously would be involved with discussing the significance and implications of those test results. Such discussions can include disagreements as to how data should be interpreted. In this instance, we are discussing the significance of high rates of FPs. If there can be no contrary interpretations, then why have a thread at all? Simply read the report of test results then -- without making any comment -- go read a book or knit a sweater or whatever. In which case, why have a forum at all? Wilders might just as well operate an online bulletin board for posting information without comments.
In sum: to designate give-&-take discussions as "bickering" is uncalled for -- it adds heat but no light. But then, I suppose the view from Mt. Olympus is splendid this time of year.
Now, if I may... back to the discussion. There are those who have reported that they have used WD with little or no FPs. I believe them. However, their experiences in this respect are simply beside the point. The test set-up -- by design -- exposes lab computers to artifically high densities of malware AND to atypically high densities of opportunities for FPs, as well. These tests -- by design -- throw more ap-cray at the lab computers in several days than an "average user" would be likely to encounter in several decades.
For these & other reasons, one person can be using "the best" of the tested AVs & still get infected. And another person may use a poorly rated AV & go for years without infection. The real world of the average user is markedly different from the artificial environment created during tests of anti-malware apps. Even so, I advise my friends to play the percentages disclosed by AV-C's reports -- for much the same reason as my poker-night friends have advised me that drawing to an inside straight might win a few pots but can also leave me in the predicament of going home wearing nothing but a sheepish grin.
Another thought re FPs -- some folks here have commented (in effect) that they kind of like a hard-nosed AV even if it does yield a higher-than-average number of FPs. Good for you -- but most of the folks on this forum are much better able to deal with FPs than "average users" are. In fact, an average user who gets a lot of FPs will often cut bait & press "allow" without giving it a second thought. That fact is at least partly the reason why user-tweakable HIPS have all but totally disappeared from the scene.
WD had this problem with FPs not that long ago.
Well said bellgamin!!!
It's for this reason I always take these tests with a pinch of salt. (Eugene Kaspersky wrote an interesting article about this very thing a few years ago.)
Sorry bellgamin, my post wasn't necessarily directed at you, but the overall general tone that is brought up every time these tests get brought up. I know I am new here, but I have been reading this forum and others like it from the sidelines for a long time now. Maybe I'm a little over sensitive when I'm tired, lol, but one thing I've noticed is that no matter what there seems to be a general tone (again not directed at you) that some how it's impossible for WD to rank where it is and that there are those (again not directed at you) that will always try to find something negative about it, no matter what. As I've said in my previous post, WD is not perfect nor will it ever be, but one cannot deny the fact that Microsoft has made some great strides compared to where it was before, unfortunately it has increased it's FP rate, but in real world usage I haven't seen it reported as being an issue to the average user...yet.
I agree with you 100% I always suggest to take these tests with a grain of salt. This is the reason why user habits will have a big, if not the biggest impact on whether one gets infected. As you said, no product is perfect and anyone can get infected using any product if they have poor computer/surfing habits. Another thing to note is that overall home users are not going to come in contact with these very sophisticated/advanced attacks, the bad guys/gals use these tactics against business, coropotations and goverments as its more lucrative for them to do so. Again, at the end of the day, use what you like and are comfortabe using, but one must always practice safe habits regardless.
I've had plenty with both. Got one from WD yesterday on Adobe software. I can understand wanting to call Adobe software a virus, but it is still wrong...
Separate names with a comma.