Discussion in 'other anti-virus software' started by itman, Aug 3, 2018.
this is a useless post ! (so is mine)
Does ESET have a free Chrome web filtering extension?
Noted. Thanks for the reply @itman. Placed in good things to reference and know that can be depended on with some confidence.
No, ESET doesn't have a filtering extension. And I believe they won't bother with one.
They don't need one, even their Antivirus only has an HTTP scanner which blocks any malicious site/download and works perfectly.
What would account for Avast scoring worse than AVG in "Protection Accuracy"? Aren't Avast (76%) and AVG (82%) now essentially the same product? If not, how do they differ?
I know in the AV-Comparatives tests for the paid versions, both score identical.
Suspect that something is missing in the free version of Avast versus the paid which causes it to score lower than the free version of AVG. This would imply that the paid and free versions of AVG are quite similar.
Garbage. Our service center sees infected machines loaded with paid antivirus all the time, including these. Compromised machines have very little to do with the installed antivirus but everything to do with the finger clicking the mouse.
Another possible reason could be timing. Avast/Avg push out streaming updates every few minutes. (If enabled.) Assume hypothetically that Avast is tested first. Then AVG is tested several (many?) minutes later. In the interval between the two product testings, the common database (cloud) used by the two products gets updated to detect one or more of the "new" threats. Then the product tested later may detect more than the product tested earlier.
Since these products will often auto-submit unknown programs for more in-depth analysis, while giving them a "conditional" pass to execute initially, if one product is tested later than the other then it may benefit from the earlier product's exposure to a new threat.
Infected by malware or pup? Some antivirus requires the user to enable some settings for the latter to be detected.
Also were the malwares active? I know there is antivirus whose technology tries to pick up active malware. For exame even if the malware is running but it can't communicate with its C&C server, it won't be detected cause there is no malicious action
I favour Emsisoft Emergency Kit these days, but I have used HitmanPro, Malwarebytes and Trend Micro's Housecall as on-demand scanners.
Obviously you didn't pick my sarcasm, I've never taken seriously the results of SE Labs and what I meant was that the 3 companies with best results happened to have only paid versions. In other tests from reliable labs (IMO), these companies never get top results...
I don't think this can ever be overstated. It is spot on.
I, for one, am still interested in hearing @Gringo95's reply to @Azure Phoenix's query regarding possibility of infected machines at his service centre being infected with pups and/or malware present but inactive.
Still no reply from @Gringo95 regarding @Azure Phoenix's query. Which is a pity as what he said in his post seemed to broadly tally with my experience as an average Joe user (see my posts above). I was genuinely interested in hearing his response. Well, there you go. Feels more and more like a fly-by-night post where someone makes a wild claim and then does a runner as soon as his claims are put under critical scrutiny.
i saw this plenty of times (PUP, toolbars, malware, etc...) when "checking" my customers (when i was a repair guy) or friends machines; all had AV (some big names), many were infected; hence my dislike of AVs.
Active or dormant? (Or both?)
Well, as you can see from my posts above, that certainly tallies with my personal experience as a humble, "average Joe" computer user.
Just hoping that @Gringo95 will come back with his reflections on @Azure Phoenix's questions—and, indeed, anyone else here in the computer repair business—so people like me can get a fuller picture of things.
I will give you "my take" on the situation.
I have seen repeated and ongoing questioning by users on PUA detection in the AV forum I frequent. The dialog goes along the lines, "I know this software is safe, why are you detecting as such." The next question is "What can I do to install it" which is obviously to ignore the alert and allow the installation to proceed. After an elapsed period of time, the turkeys return with complaints of suspicious activities on their devices; if they are lucky. What the "brain impaired" don't realize is the PUA detection also includes "unscrupulous business practices" by software vendor. These include but are not limited to for example, system "optimization" utilities where the results generated are bogus. The vendor will then offer to correct these "deficiencies" for a fee. If the vendor takes remote control of your PC to fix "the problem," you're double-dead meat.
That happens, but it is exceptionally rare. I know this because I've been testing PUPs for years.
Here is an example of a program that makes up results. https://betanews.com/2016/11/07/clean-pc-smart-fake-registry-cleaner/
But, programs like this, are few and far between. However it needs to be said, that cleaning the registry, usually is pointless. At least 99.9% of the time, cleaning the registry will not increase performance or fix errors. So, while these unwanted cleaning programs will claim to be able to make a computer run like new, more of then not, there will be little or not benefit gained from using them.
There is no need to make up results. Even a clean install of any version of Windows, will have registry keys which are not needed, which will get detected as errors by registry cleaners and can safely be removed.
More often than not these cleaning/optimisation programs don't work very well, but for most part, if you buy the full version, they will actually delete any registry errors and clean any junk they find. Almost always these programs will end up deleting needed registry keys. But at least 99% of registry cleaners have issues with false positives. The false positives are not done intentionally to increase the number of errors, but are due to a badly written registry cleaner. Even the registry cleaner in CCleaner has very minor issues with false positives.