May 2016 Windows 10 tests at av-test.org

Discussion in 'other anti-virus software' started by IvoShoen, May 30, 2016.

  1. IvoShoen

    IvoShoen Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2008
    Posts:
    525
  2. Iangh

    Iangh Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2005
    Posts:
    611
    Location:
    Melbourne, Australia
    That's a bit harsh looking at the 4 week detection rate. For your average Joe that doesn't go to the dark side it looks like WD is more than adequate to me, especially if you don't want to be nagged.:thumb:
     
  3. Nevis

    Nevis Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2010
    Posts:
    786
    Location:
    255.255.255.255
    Agree. Detection of prevalent malware is good in WD.
     
  4. Macstorm

    Macstorm Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2005
    Posts:
    2,531
    Location:
    Sneffels volcano
    Yes, you don't need other av than WD under Win 8.1 & 10.
     
  5. IvoShoen

    IvoShoen Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2008
    Posts:
    525
    In most cases this is true, especially when activating cloud, adware and pup detecton. I had expected to see better results for WD in the latest test. That is why I was dissapointed.
     
    Last edited: May 31, 2016
  6. Krusty

    Krusty Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2012
    Posts:
    2,865
    Location:
    Australia
    Absolutely taking nothing away from WD, it is still good to see that the cream always rises to the top.

    Nice work, Norton / Symantec! :thumb:
     
  7. Martin_C

    Martin_C Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2014
    Posts:
    217
    As always, these tests do not include SmartScreen blocks.

    Considering that Windows Defender are the only product tested that are not allowed to use its webfilter and that all other tested products have their webfilter active - then the results aren't worth much if trying to compare.

    More on SmartScreen : https://blogs.windows.com/msedgedev/2015/12/16/smartscreen-drive-by-improvements/

    As has been mentioned repeatedly - either test ALL products equally WITH webfilter activated or test ALL products WITHOUT webfilter.

    If tested again where all the third-party solutions have their webfilter disabled or if tested again where WD are used in combination with SmartScreen as intended - then results will be very different.
    And of course include a column showing SmartScreen blocks.

    Test are supposed to be a "real world" scenario. There's nothing "real world" about disabling part of the native security.
     
  8. Boblvf

    Boblvf Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2014
    Posts:
    103

    Salut gars,

    Yes ! you are a chief.
     
  9. ArchiveX

    ArchiveX Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2014
    Posts:
    1,015
    :cool:
     
  10. Jadda

    Jadda Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2007
    Posts:
    422
    The usual suspects on the top again. :)
     
  11. Influenza

    Influenza Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2016
    Posts:
    23
    Avast free better than Emsisoft:D
     
  12. siketa

    siketa Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2012
    Posts:
    2,695
    Location:
    Zagreb, Croatia
    Weird results...I don't trust this test.....AVC and my experience say totally opposite....
     
  13. Minimalist

    Minimalist Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2014
    Posts:
    5,046
    @Martin_C
    I agree that it would be more realistic to use default settings during tests since most user will probably use it.
    OTOH enabling SmarScreen will probably improve results for all AVs and not just WD. AFAIK it protects your system no mater which AV you are using.
     
  14. Martin_C

    Martin_C Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2014
    Posts:
    217
    @Minimalist :

    Yes, I agree. That is also why I mentioned that they need to add a column that shows blocks from SmartScreen.

    That will give a "real world" scenario.

    In relation to Windows Defender testing, this will mean that we see the OS tested in the way the OS actually works and are used by the people looking at the test.

    In relation to third-party solutions, users will also see results reflecting their actual daily experience. And as a bonus they can see what the OS blocks for them.

    Credits given where credits are due.

    Third-party vendors can't really complain.

    Testing security is about testing resistance in working condition.
    And not like now where they test what happens when you disable certain modules, and only substitute the disabled modules for some tested parties but not for others.

    Testing Windows Defender with parts of the OS security turned off makes no sense. The OS security are designed as a complete strategy.

    The testing mentioned above would give users test results that are meaningful and it would be easy for the testing institutions to implement.

    Current way of testing are a service to certain vendors, not the users reading it.
     
  15. xxJackxx

    xxJackxx Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2008
    Posts:
    4,046
    Location:
    USA
    It is part of the OS, not part of Defender. It would give the same results with any product. Testing it separately may be valid, but using it to boost the score of 1 product in my opinion is not.
     
  16. Martin_C

    Martin_C Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2014
    Posts:
    217
    You are missing the point.

    The OS and its security are designed as a whole.

    SmartScreen are the reputation database, webfilter and zero-day filter.
    That IS a big part of the protection.

    Since the OS are designed to have these areas covered by SmartScreen, then it has nothing to do with boosting anything.

    This is how the system are designed.

    Since SmartScreen covers those areas, Defender does not to the same degree.

    Modular design. Just like your third-party solutions.

    Only difference are that tested third-party solutions are allowed to use all modules in test. Windows Defender are not.

    Let me ask you this - Windows Firewall are not part of Windows Defender.
    So are you going to claim that Windows Firewall should also be disabled during testing of Defender, so someone can make a thread claiming that Windows Defender didn't block inbound packets ??
     
  17. bjm_

    bjm_ Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 22, 2009
    Posts:
    2,280
    Does SmartScreen protect Firefox activity. I've never seen SmartScreen in Firefox. I've seen SmartScreen a few times with downloads from IE11.
     
  18. itman

    itman Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2010
    Posts:
    2,969
    Location:
    U.S.A.
    SmartSrceen is a feature of IE and Edge browsers exclusively.

    Also the new drive-by download protection added to SmartScreen appears to only apply to Win 10. This leads me to believe MS added sometime to Win 10 that is filtering traffic at the network level.
     
  19. Minimalist

    Minimalist Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2014
    Posts:
    5,046
    After Windows 8 it is system-wide feature.
     
  20. itman

    itman Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2010
    Posts:
    2,969
    Location:
    U.S.A.
    How is it enabled and disabled? Must be via a setting that is not browser dependent then.
     
  21. Minimalist

    Minimalist Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2014
    Posts:
    5,046
  22. TonyW

    TonyW Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2005
    Posts:
    2,633
    Location:
    UK
    In Windows 10 there is also an option to turn SmartScreen on or off in Privacy Settings under the General tab. If this is enabled SmartScreen checks web content that Windows Store apps use.

    The option @Minimalist describes above is in Windows 10 as well as 8.1 and comes up with a dialog asking what a user wants to do with unrecognised applications if using SmartScreen.
     
    Last edited: May 31, 2016
  23. itman

    itman Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2010
    Posts:
    2,969
    Location:
    U.S.A.
    Did you pick up on this "goodie" from the link you posted:

    During this process, the data transfer (over HTTPS) between your computer/tablet running Windows 8.1 and Microsoft's servers can be intercepted by hackers.
    The only way that can happen is if an external MITM was taking place. The only way that can be prevented is if a tunnel was established between the client and server and both were using special monitoring software to detect the MITM activity. Perhaps the author is a bit confused or MS actually doing this with SmartScreen enabled? Or just for Win Updates perhaps?

     
  24. Minimalist

    Minimalist Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2014
    Posts:
    5,046
    I missed it, but there is no additional info or link to that info included. Communication is over https so intercepted data would probably be encrypted. Since I'm not using SmartScreen (privacy concerns) it isn't that important to me.
     
  25. Trooper

    Trooper Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2005
    Posts:
    2,824
    Weird results on these tests imho.
     
Loading...