Discussion in 'other anti-virus software' started by Thankful, Apr 13, 2017.
Very good results for Fortinet.
Good to see an "oldie but goodie" back on the "top shelf" - The new Vipre continues to rock the house.
Bitdefender and Emsisoft at 100 % again, nice results from Microsoft
Panda did very well, which is good to see.
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.
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.
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!
@StillBorn You're welcome.
Well done Panda and Microsoft.
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?
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.
Interesting to see antivirus vendors using same engine SDK get different results haha.
I just viewed the chart. May I know what browser was used?
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?
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.
@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?
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.
Quick heal is not included !
see Seqrite (business product of Quick Heal)
i am disappointed with Emsisoft
Why? They scored 100 % again with just 4 false positives.
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.
i am seeing 94%
Separate names with a comma.