AV-TEST October 2018

Discussion in 'other anti-virus software' started by Ultra Male, Nov 27, 2018.

  1. Ultra Male

    Ultra Male Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2016
    Posts:
    407
    Location:
    Dubai
  2. Ultra Male

    Ultra Male Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2016
    Posts:
    407
    Location:
    Dubai
    Malwarebytes now included in the test
     
  3. james246

    james246 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2005
    Posts:
    114
    And bottom of the class in terms of protection according to this test
     
  4. Ultra Male

    Ultra Male Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2016
    Posts:
    407
    Location:
    Dubai
    True I was surprised to see that.
     
  5. james246

    james246 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2005
    Posts:
    114
    To date Malwarebytes has never really been a universal solution, more a companion to be added to a more standard AV, so it is a bit surprising to see it in this type of test. There is a lot of intellectual horse power in this company so maybe they are looking to widen their gaze against more attack vectors, if so it will be interesting to see where they are in six months time.
     
  6. roger_m

    roger_m Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2009
    Posts:
    7,206
    While that's true, since the release of v3 they have been claiming that it can replace an antivirus.
     
  7. The Seeker

    The Seeker Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2005
    Posts:
    1,294
    Location:
    Adelaide
    Malwarebytes' explanation.
     
  8. Osaban

    Osaban Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2005
    Posts:
    4,792
    From the Malwarebytes article post #7
    Still wishful thinking, Malwarebytes states they are better in the real world than in tests, but where is the evidence? Microsoft used to say the same thing about Windows Defender in the past, but nowadays WD is among the best in AVs tests...
     
  9. Rasheed187

    Rasheed187 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2004
    Posts:
    11,879
    Location:
    The Netherlands
    The thing is, anti-malware tools should be able to block malware, no matter how it's executed, so there really is no excuse. For example, if malware is executed via exploit, then MBAM will probably do good, but not because it recognized the malware, but because it recognized the exploitation technique. And if you can not identify malware on execute, then you should be able to at least interfere with suspicious behavior after malware is already active in memory. I'm not sure if this is tested.
     
Loading...
  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.