AV-Comparatives: Real-World Protection Tests for June 2017 & Feb – June 2017

Discussion in 'other anti-virus software' started by anon, Jul 14, 2017.

  1. clocks

    clocks Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2007
    Posts:
    2,637
    According to av-comp, it has the highest impact of any AV program. https://www.av-comparatives.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/avc_per_201705_en.pdf
     
  2. Trooper

    Trooper Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2005
    Posts:
    3,386
    Not denying what we are both seeing in black and white. It's not like I have done benchmark tests or anything either. But for what I normally do on my machine not noticing anything crazy. If I did, would already be back to third party. Which I still might do anyway.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 16, 2017 at 2:53 PM
  3. clocks

    clocks Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2007
    Posts:
    2,637
    Yeah, if it is working for you no reason to drop it. I didn't like it because I saw it using a ton or resources, and it also kept giving me a warning that I had to scan my PC every few days. I never do on-demand scans with my AV. They have real-time protection. If I want to do an on-demand scan I will use Zemana or something similar.
     
  4. Cutting_Edgetech

    Cutting_Edgetech Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2006
    Posts:
    5,163
    Location:
    USA
    They probably would, i'm not sure. It seems to me that Eset has sacrificed higher detection rates in order to have little to no false positives for a long time now. They usually have none in test results.


    Yes, there exploit protection has been good. I think it could be better though if they added more mitigation techniques to their arsenal.

    Yes, their detection has been lacking lately.
     
  5. Lockdown

    Lockdown Developer

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2016
    Posts:
    697
    Location:
    AppGuard LLC, Virginia, U.S.
    ESET (26/1955) x 100 = 1.3 % overall actual compromise rate. Within the context of typical computing that very small percentage is of virtually no consequence.

    On average, a user would have to download 37.5 malicious files per week and ESET would miss 0.5 of those malicious files.

    How many security soft geeks download 37.5 malicious files in a week ? None. That makes the 1.3 % statistically non-relevant - if you adhere to the law of averages.

    The problem is users unrealistically expecting a 100 % detection\0 % failure rate 100 % of the time.
     
    Last edited: Jul 16, 2017 at 5:55 PM
  6. Cutting_Edgetech

    Cutting_Edgetech Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2006
    Posts:
    5,163
    Location:
    USA
    Yes, but users should expect to see results about the same as other comparable products. There's where the problem lies. It's not about the percentage rate alone. In other words you compare a product to how well the other products performed.

    Edited 7/16/17 @ 6:07
     
  7. Lockdown

    Lockdown Developer

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2016
    Posts:
    697
    Location:
    AppGuard LLC, Virginia, U.S.
    I would bet a good portion of the 26 were of the same malware class. Detection rates are not static, but vary over time. Look back through the test history and you will see individual products' detection rates jump up-and-down.

    In terms of actual computing, the only thing that matters is the overall failure rate. That's what people don't get or simply refuse to accept. Of course that is based upon the laws of averages. Some unlucky sod could theoretically download 10 files and each one could be malware that bypasses whatever solution they have installed.
     
  8. roger_m

    roger_m Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2009
    Posts:
    5,846
    Have you got a fast CPU? I've found WD can cause noticeable drops in performance at times, if you haven't got a fast CPU.
     
  9. itman

    itman Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2010
    Posts:
    4,528
    Location:
    U.S.A.
    In regard to AV Lab tests, some folks might also not realize that the products are tested with default settings.

    Whereas this might be applicable to MSE and WD which have no configurable settings in that regard, most other AV products have a wide array of settings that can be deployed; such settings as realtime scanning thoroughness and aggressiveness, boot scanning options, HIPS or behavior blocker increased detection features/settings, etc.. These settings are primarily not enabled to reduce false positives for which vendors are penalized with in the AV Lab tests.
     
  10. Trooper

    Trooper Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2005
    Posts:
    3,386
     

    Attached Files:

  11. roger_m

    roger_m Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2009
    Posts:
    5,846
    That is a very fast processor. It's nearly three times faster than the i3 CPU in my fastest laptop.
     
  12. Trooper

    Trooper Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2005
    Posts:
    3,386
    Roger that. Maybe that is why I am not feeling a performance hit.
     
  13. clocks

    clocks Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2007
    Posts:
    2,637
    I don't know that WD will necessarily make anyones PC slow. But in my mind, it is a cumulative thing. If I use a handful of programs that are a bit on the heavy side, eventually there will be an impact. So I always keep an eye on what programs are using in terms of memory, cpu, disk, etc...
     
  14. Lockdown

    Lockdown Developer

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2016
    Posts:
    697
    Location:
    AppGuard LLC, Virginia, U.S.
    The general level of ignorance regarding AV lab tests is astounding - given the fact that the methodology is explained in the test reports. Looks to me like people just make IT security decisions based solely on pretty pictures.
     
  15. anon

    anon Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2012
    Posts:
    4,714
    A very fast processor with 16 GB RAM......
     
  16. ReverseGear

    ReverseGear formerly: Sherlock_Holmes

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2010
    Posts:
    1,511
    Location:
    Mumbai
    I have a i5 6600 , 16 GB ram and an ssd and I could still feel slowdowns with WD , so ymmv like any other antivirus
     
  17. J_L

    J_L Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2009
    Posts:
    8,647
    Did you use CCleaner with Windows Defender checkmarked?
     
  18. true indian

    true indian Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2012
    Posts:
    859
    Location:
    india
    Yes I didn't know that might as well go back and check my school grade of 8.6.:D About the fp factor--just my opinion that it should be sorted by red because then emsisoft wouldnt be that far behind despite the user dependency (their alerts are pretty assertive)
     
  19. Trooper

    Trooper Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2005
    Posts:
    3,386
  20. clocks

    clocks Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2007
    Posts:
    2,637
    I may have. Does that increase WDs resource usage?
     
  21. stapp

    stapp Global Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2006
    Posts:
    8,445
    Location:
    England
    Don't think so, but if you have WD checkmarked in CCleaner it cleans the scan logs so that WD thinks it hasn't done a scan and keeps asking you to do one :)
     
  22. mekelek

    mekelek Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 5, 2017
    Posts:
    16
    Location:
    Hungary
    that is a 3rd generation i5, hardly any better than the latest i3's in most laptops.
     
  23. lordraiden

    lordraiden Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2006
    Posts:
    3,432
    If WD becomes good, probably many products will start to be "compatible" with WD like Zemana, Hitmanpro, MBAM, Webroot, etc.
     
  24. roger_m

    roger_m Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2009
    Posts:
    5,846
    It it substantially faster than the i3 in my main laptop.
    According to CPU Benchmark, the i7 has a CPU Mark rating of 7,033, where as the i3 2310m in my main laptop has a rating of just 2,423.
    So while I can't speak for others. I can only dream on one day having a computer that fast.

    I have a 1st generation i5 in one of my laptops which has similar performance to the i3 in my main laptop. But, all my other computers have Core 2 Duo (or worse) processors.
     
  25. Hiltihome

    Hiltihome Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2013
    Posts:
    684
    Location:
    Baden Germany
    CPU performance is overrated, when it comes to snappiness.
    Most important is to have a decent SSD and at least 4GB RAM.

    My eight years old Dell XPS M1330 (Core2-duo 2,40GHz/4GB) runs great, since I put in an EVO840
     
    Last edited: Jul 17, 2017 at 9:42 PM
Loading...