Real-World Protection Test March 2017

Discussion in 'other anti-virus software' started by Thankful, Apr 13, 2017.

  1. Thankful

    Thankful Savings Monitor

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2005
    Posts:
    5,901
    Location:
    New York City
  2. anon

    anon Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2012
    Posts:
    6,783
    Very good results for Fortinet.
     
  3. hawki

    hawki Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2008
    Posts:
    5,614
    Location:
    DC Metro Area
    Good to see an "oldie but goodie" back on the "top shelf" - The new Vipre continues to rock the house.
     
    Last edited: Apr 13, 2017
  4. Nightwalker

    Nightwalker Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2008
    Posts:
    1,303
    Bitdefender and Emsisoft at 100 % again, nice results from Microsoft :thumb:
     
  5. roger_m

    roger_m Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2009
    Posts:
    8,028
    Panda did very well, which is good to see.
     
  6. StillBorn

    StillBorn Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2014
    Posts:
    188
    Hard to miss. Panda's been kicking proverbial "A"rse for a while now on various testing formats. I've ditched Avira for Panda because for the time being it appears to play nicer with MBAM v.3. Specifically meaning that MBAM refused to update under the red umbrella. If I recall correctly, Panda's Achilles's Heel was the anti malware removal test ratings. Great detection--- not so great removal after the fact. Should malware removal remain weak, I may without reservation switch back to an old flame--- Bitdefender free. As always, my two-cents (subjectively over-rated, of course) would hardly merit an A vs B comparison discussion in contrast and in violation of TOS postings in this thread. I do, however, wish out loud here that Bitdefender would parade the testing merits on their freebie app. Just for fun, and especially for the sport of it.
     
  7. roger_m

    roger_m Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2009
    Posts:
    8,028
    I've got limited experience with using Panda with malware removal so far. But, I did download an infected file, and Panda instantly disenfected it, leaving me with a working but virus free installer. Some other antiviruses would have just quarantined it.
     
  8. StillBorn

    StillBorn Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2014
    Posts:
    188
    An interesting and encouraging observation for sure. With the MBAM/Panda duo and flying 90% plus of the time with Shadow Defender activated, I might just scratch that itch to surf some of the darker shades of pink on the web tonight. Just kidding. Waayyyy kidding, dear folks.

    @Roger-m... Seriously, though. Thank you for your insightful reply! :thumb:
     
  9. roger_m

    roger_m Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2009
    Posts:
    8,028
  10. ance

    ance formerly: fmon

    Joined:
    May 5, 2013
    Posts:
    1,359
    Well done Panda and Microsoft. :thumb:
     
  11. avman1995

    avman1995 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2012
    Posts:
    944
    Location:
    india
    How do they call the sample as bypassed?? Eg: If you detect the dropped binary and miss the dropper the system still remains protected.

    In malware protection test:
    unique about this test is that in addition to checking detection in scans, it additionally assesses each program’s last line of defence. Any samples that have not been detected e.g. on-access are executed on the test system, with Internet/cloud access available, to allow features such as behavioural protection to come into play.

    So how is real world test any different? I assume you still test the last line of defense even here right?
     
  12. IBK

    IBK AV Expert

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2003
    Posts:
    1,873
    Location:
    Innsbruck (Austria)
    The difference is that in the real-world protection test the samples arrive via the web (i.e. malicious URLs), so also URL-blockers etc. come to play there.
     
  13. thanatos_theos

    thanatos_theos Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2007
    Posts:
    581
    Interesting to see antivirus vendors using same engine SDK get different results haha.
     
  14. thanatos_theos

    thanatos_theos Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2007
    Posts:
    581
    I just viewed the chart. May I know what browser was used?
     
  15. IBK

    IBK AV Expert

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2003
    Posts:
    1,873
    Location:
    Innsbruck (Austria)
    Chrome.
     
  16. thanatos_theos

    thanatos_theos Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2007
    Posts:
    581
    Interesting. Even when Smartscreen played no part, WD scored 99%.

    If url was blocked that's different score compared to when download was blocked? Or just same? How about when download was ran then it was blocked?

    Was Smartscreen for apps not counted as part of WD?
     
  17. itman

    itman Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2010
    Posts:
    8,397
    Location:
    U.S.A.
    This test was for MSE running on Win 7.

    For WD results, you need to refer to the Malware Protection test results in another thread. That was run on Win 10. As such, native Smartscreen is enabled.
     
  18. thanatos_theos

    thanatos_theos Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2007
    Posts:
    581
    @itman oops haha thank you! Still, it's a pretty impressive feat since it was MSE without the help of Smartscreen. Trend micro, Bitdefender and others employ a URL blocker. Unless @IBK didn't turn that protection on?
     
  19. guest

    guest Guest

    The day the default security of windows 10 will be tested properly, many will notice that this business is dead for end users.
    Meanwhile we have to live with these reports that offer a partial and an unrealistic vision.
     
  20. ankupan

    ankupan Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2004
    Posts:
    510
    Quick heal is not included !
     
  21. IBK

    IBK AV Expert

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2003
    Posts:
    1,873
    Location:
    Innsbruck (Austria)
    see Seqrite (business product of Quick Heal)
     
  22. gery

    gery Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2008
    Posts:
    2,140
    i am disappointed with Emsisoft
     
  23. Nightwalker

    Nightwalker Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2008
    Posts:
    1,303
    Why? They scored 100 % again with just 4 false positives.
     
  24. illumination

    illumination Guest

    +1

    As a independent tester, I can attest and have shared this perception with many, that while I'm testing 3rd party applications, I have to "Allow" the malicious files through Smartscreen and UAC 99% of the time in order to run the sample and test the product. I am a tester that will leave those modules enabled, many of the independent and even professional testers do not, and try to claim windows default is not up to par. I'm finding less reasons to use 3rd party applications, other the policy restriction or anti exes combined with the default security to fill that small gap.
     
  25. gery

    gery Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2008
    Posts:
    2,140
    i am seeing 94%
     
  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.