MRG Effitas 360 Degree Assessment & Certification Q2 2020

Discussion in 'other anti-virus software' started by waking, Sep 20, 2020.

  1. waking

    waking Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2016
    Posts:
    82
    MRG Effitas 360 Degree Assessment & Certification Q2 2020

    https://www.mrg-effitas.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/MRG_Effitas_2020Q2_360.pdf
     
  2. Osaban

    Osaban Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2005
    Posts:
    5,340
    Location:
    Milan and Seoul
    MS Defender as good as the big names...
     
  3. Spartan

    Spartan Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2016
    Posts:
    1,036
    Location:
    Dubai
    Defender won the performance test yet AV-Comparatives puts it way at the bottom towards the heaviest AVs and I also can feel it on any system that has Defender on it how sluggish it becomes even when browsing file explorer or installing apps. I take this test with a grain of salt.
     
  4. digmor crusher

    digmor crusher Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2012
    Posts:
    897
    Location:
    Canada
    Everyones computer is different, definitely not sluggish for me.
     
  5. Osaban

    Osaban Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2005
    Posts:
    5,340
    Location:
    Milan and Seoul
    It is well known that performance impact is very difficult to gauge as it is by and large related to individual systems which are all different in terms of hardware and software configuration. In my case I used Avira Pro and Kaspersky Internet security, and I can attest that on my machine MS Defender is now as fast as the above mentioned AVs. It was not always so though, as recently as 2 years ago Avira and KIS were definitely faster, but I agree tests offer a general indication, the best test is to trial the software on a particular machine.
     
  6. Bunkhouse Buck

    Bunkhouse Buck Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2007
    Posts:
    1,107
    Location:
    Las Vegas
    Widows Defender not sluggish on my computers. In fact, lighter than five other AVs I have tested over the past few months.
     
  7. imdb

    imdb Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2011
    Posts:
    2,970
    gone are the days when wd was heavy and slow. it's light as a feather now. :thumb:
     
  8. Gandalf_The_Grey

    Gandalf_The_Grey Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2012
    Posts:
    803
    Location:
    The Netherlands
    I miss Kaspersky in this test.
    They did very well in these tests before.
     
  9. Nightwalker

    Nightwalker Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2008
    Posts:
    1,285
    Microsoft Defender is pretty light here, no complaints.
     
  10. itman

    itman Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2010
    Posts:
    8,379
    Location:
    U.S.A.
    Finally a lab test where no product detected all samples on the initial examination mirroring realistic real world malware status. Kudos to MRG on the effort to get malware samples reflecting this.
     
  11. bellgamin

    bellgamin Very Frequent Poster

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2002
    Posts:
    7,335
    Location:
    Hawaii
    Yes, and I am greatly impressed that NONE of the tested apps achieved Level 1 Certification.

    IMO, AV-Comparatives and other test labs had better emulate the severe testing criteria and techniques of MRG-Effitas in order to regain their credibility as being any sort of a basis for selecting between competing AVs.

    As of now (& probably NEVER) there is no *perfect* app for security protection against any & all threats. Tests which fail to reflect that fact are patently inadequate tests. When I see test results where the charts show some security apps as having attained 99% or greater protection, and NO apps with significant failures, I instantly am bored and read no further. As of now, tests by MRG-Effitas stand alone in holding my full attention in that respect.
     
  12. Minimalist

    Minimalist Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2014
    Posts:
    14,327
    Location:
    Slovenia
    I miss Kaspersky in this test also. They are usually included in all major tests so IDK why they didn't participate now.
     
  13. itman

    itman Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2010
    Posts:
    8,379
    Location:
    U.S.A.
    My best guess is it didn't like the results shown for its 2020 Q1 test of its small business office product.
     
  14. Minimalist

    Minimalist Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2014
    Posts:
    14,327
    Location:
    Slovenia
    Maybe, although those results don't look that bad to me.
     
  15. itman

    itman Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2010
    Posts:
    8,379
    Location:
    U.S.A.
    They missed 10% on the Exploit/fileless samples test. Also a few financial malware detection's were 24hr.
     
  16. Rasheed187

    Rasheed187 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2004
    Posts:
    14,101
    Location:
    The Netherlands
    Win Defender actually scored 100% for the first time when it came to blocking exploits and fileless malware, I guess they have improved their behavior blocker. They also did well when it came to false positives. However, only Bitdefender and Symantec blocked 100% of the "in the wild" malware test, so perhaps Norton should be bashed a little bit less. :D
     
  17. itman

    itman Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2010
    Posts:
    8,379
    Location:
    U.S.A.
    Not really:
    -EDIT- https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/wi...tion/microsoft-defender-atp/edr-in-block-mode. Really believe the detection is being made in the Azure cloud sandbox. In other words, the process is in a suspended state awaiting final determination from the cloud.

     
    Last edited: Sep 26, 2020
  18. Minimalist

    Minimalist Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2014
    Posts:
    14,327
    Location:
    Slovenia
    That's true, they've missed 1 sample. If there were only 2 samples used in test instead of 10 they could even miss 50% :)
    With such small sample sizes I don't care much about percentages, only absolute numbers are of interest to me.

    EDIT: some interesting discussion about randomness here: https://malwaretips.com/threads/randomness-in-the-av-labs-testing.104104/
     
  19. itman

    itman Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2010
    Posts:
    8,379
    Location:
    U.S.A.
  20. Rasheed187

    Rasheed187 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2004
    Posts:
    14,101
    Location:
    The Netherlands
  21. amico81

    amico81 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2017
    Posts:
    97
    Location:
    Germany
    No not available in Home Version :(
     
  22. Azure Phoenix

    Azure Phoenix Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2014
    Posts:
    1,303
    I don't think ATP is available in Win 10 Home. But the ASR rules definitely are.
     
  23. itman

    itman Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2010
    Posts:
    8,379
    Location:
    U.S.A.
    Err ....... The test was for Enterprise/Commercial security solutions.

    As far as WD ATP goes, its an optional subscription service.It's only including by default in the Win Enterprise solutions which BTW are subscription based. And I believe the minimum requirements are now Win 10 Pro version and above.
     
    Last edited: Oct 3, 2020
  24. Rasheed187

    Rasheed187 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2004
    Posts:
    14,101
    Location:
    The Netherlands
    OK, my bad. So it was actually the Win Def "Pro" version that was tested. So there is a big change that without the ATP component, Win Def AV would have once again failed to block file-less malware.
     
  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.