F-Secure Deepguard

Hi,
I saw on:
http://www.av-comparatives.org/weblog/index.php
that:
DeepGuard blocked with success all the random selected and executed malware based on its behavior, passing the test and winning the “Proactive Protection Award.
Does this mean 100% detection and a Advanced +++ rating.
I can't find the figures.
Bob

 

no, it's probably something close to 100%, as for advanced+++ these types of products usually require interactions, even for legit programs (look at kaspersky's proactive defense module, it also got this awards), seeing as these ratings are given by detection rates & FP rate i don't think this can be used in this test.

 

Here is what you are looking for.

 

Given this award am I adding anything to my security by using Boclean as well?

Superfluous or not?

Thanks,
Ian

 

IMHO you dont need anything other than f-secure in realtime.
assuming you have f-secure internet secuirty 2007?
it may of taken along time to start on my pc but in the past it blocked quite a few trojan downloaders.
lodore

 

yep, this latest test just proved that f-secure is pure power

i still believe it to be the most f-'secure' suite on the market today.

with slightly better detection than kaspersky and a proactive defense that is not as pop-up hungry and gives better information about the things it finds, instead of computer jargon and accept/deny, this is a great suite.

yes its uses more ram, yes it takes longer to boot up the machine than kaspersky, buts its more secure, and cheaper!!! and ive had less problems with this than kaspersky, infact... im one of those users who cant use kaspersky because it never really works right, there are a quite a few of us, and nobody seems to know why, kaspersky sure as hell dont.

anyway, im glad it blocked them all on the test

 

I just cannot disagree! Very powerful, but very convenient to use. What else do we need? (Well, as my signature shows, one can of course be paranoid

 

But isn´t this stuff more related to HIPS? I mean SSM can probably also stop all this malware but it will always require user input. I would be really impressed if heuristics would be able to spot malware, I mean if a HIPS gives you an alert you still do not know if software is malicious or not.

 

you can set f-secure to ask for user input everytime if you wish,

but with this you get the built in 99% detection rate, and all the rest what comes with f-secure.

 

how do you know the builtin deepguard detection rate/protection rate on default non nagging settings is 99%, IBK likes to set everything to the maximal possible settings

 

because deepguard doesnt really have any settings,

its not like heuristics were some AV's have different settings that will alter its detection,

you can either have it ask you on everything or ask when fsecure is unclear or or automatic.

i recommend ask on everything, i will to be in control with what happens

 

yes, well if it asks on everything it will be annoying, but probably score high, if you leave it on automatic it won't be so annoying, but what about the score, it should be lower, how low who knows, IBK's test doesn't show what settings were used, ask on everything, automatic etc.

 

I would really like to know which settings where applied in the test and how "Deepguard" would score in "automatic" mode. Is IBK here? I tried F-Secure and I found it quite annoying in "normal" mode. For example it pop ups when I start "Virtua Tennis" game or I want to uninstall certain applications. I don't think this sort of behavior is acceptable for average users such as my father, he would feel helpless and get annoyed and probably just ignore. So it is vital to know how well the "automatic" mode does!

 

f-secure deeepguard is all or nothing im afraid.
the automatic mode can block stuff you know are safe such as my creative sound card driver a while back.
or if you tell it to ask on everything it is really really annoying.
lodore

 

yeah but so is kasperskys, its all or nothing.... either it pops up all the time, or you turn it off and turn up all the other settings.

what f-secures does different, is it at least attempts to make its decisions automatically and asks when needed, also... these require NO user control on automatic, and very little on ask everything.

but anyway, drweb's in V5 will beat all these with a stick

 

you are really commited to dr web. what if it doesn't....?

 

its called keeping the faith

the programmers have told me its better than kasperskys PDM, they labelled it as 'different' but 'better' - in direct comparison to kasperskys.

and thats a REALLY BIG statement to make i think.

only time will tell, but with everything drweb put into their program, 'it just works', this has always been the case.

 

how do you know kaspersky won't add anything new to the pdm themselves to make it even better.

 

haha that old what IF's, what IF drweb add massive detection to counter kasperskys.



anyway, back OT ...... DEEPGUARD IS GOOOOOOOOOOD!

 

OT:

C.S.J, you really should start a Dr.Web blog so other users who don't have the ability/will to obtain inside information can see what's going on with development. haha.

 

This is not good news. If you read their white paper on "Deepguard" it sounds like it really does everything itself ("artificial intelligence"). I mean, it's easy to just query the user on everything the program does not know itself. I want the program to make the (correct!) decision for me.

Anyway, I find the automatic mode the only one tolerable. At least you get notified if something is blocked. Let's see how often I encounter something legitimate that gets blocked.

And of course it would be interesting to know how much of the bad stuff it is still blocked. But I see that no one seems to know how the av-comparatives test was performed.