Test of free antivirus according to CheckLab.pl

Discussion in 'other anti-virus software' started by adrian_sc, Nov 28, 2019.

  1. adrian_sc

    adrian_sc Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2017
    Posts:
    29
    Location:
    Poland
    Dear Readers of WildersSecurity.

    In two paragraphs [...]:
    • Comparison of free and paid antivirus - what are the differences?
    • What is missing in free products?
    [...] we tried to explain the differences between free and paid security products.

    https://checklab.pl/sites/default/files/galeria/checklab_free_av_october_2019_chart.png

    You can read full report at: https://checklab.pl/en/publications/comparison-free-security-product-protect-personal-computers

    Chart and table: https://checklab.pl/en/recent-results

    Awards: https://checklab.pl/en/awards

    And about CheckLab: https://checklab.pl/en/about-us
     
  2. clocks

    clocks Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2007
    Posts:
    2,746
    They need to add a legend to that chart.
     
  3. Victek

    Victek Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2007
    Posts:
    5,995
    Location:
    USA
    Yes, I have no idea what the colors on the bars signify.
     
  4. Brocke

    Brocke Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2008
    Posts:
    2,275
    Location:
    USA,IA
    Here you go

    Screenshot_20191128-102413.png
     
  5. Pat MacKnife

    Pat MacKnife Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2014
    Posts:
    532
    Location:
    Belgium
    As for Windows defender test they didn't use smartscreen as browser protection, so its normal that WD didn't score so well.(No browser protection)
    But for example this test WD + Chrome + WDBP or WD + Edge Chromium would be a much better result at browser level.
    So if you use chrome add windows browser protection (extension) and maybe Bitdefender trafficlight extension for phishing and your good to go, also Edge chromium is with smartscreen (browser protection) + BDtrafficlight.
    People who use ConfigureDefender can tweak WD with High or Max settings which give a higher protection :) (this would certainly give WD +++ level)
     
  6. Hiltihome

    Hiltihome Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2013
    Posts:
    887
    Location:
    Baden Germany
    +1
    It seems, that they are all tricking, to shine a bad light on WD.
    As I work as a customer supporter, I have to say,
    that machines with WD and PUP tweak, are the least infected, that come in.
     
  7. adrian_sc

    adrian_sc Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2017
    Posts:
    29
    Location:
    Poland
    The legend is available at webpage with charts and tables: https://checklab.pl/en/recent-results

    Please consider that we are testing technologies for protection. The extension Windows Defender Browser Protection is not part of the official package from Microsoft. It is not ready as out-of-the-box.

    If we tweak the settings for Windows Defender or install extra extension to the browser to get a better result, we must do the same for AVs, which do not have a filter of malicious pages in the browser, e.g. SecureAPlus or Comodo. And this probably won't be fair, I suppose. It'll get quite a mess.

    If we install the extension for antivirus X, then there will be a question - why you install this extension and not other? And why haven't you tested all of them? ... :)

    Aren't the default settings the most fair in comparative tests?
     
  8. fax

    fax Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2005
    Posts:
    3,899
    Location:
    localhost
    Isn't it Microsoft SmartScreen default in Edge or Chromium Edge in windows 10??
     
  9. itman

    itman Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2010
    Posts:
    7,904
    Location:
    U.S.A.
    Yes. And so noted in the report write up:
    Also, SmartScreen is enabled by default in IE11.

    The problem is most do not use Edge as their browser and Chromium Edge has not been officially released. As such, most AV labs will test with a browser in wide use such as Chrome or FireFox.
     
  10. itman

    itman Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2010
    Posts:
    7,904
    Location:
    U.S.A.
    Andy Ful over at malwaretips.com made an interesting comment that he believes the samples tested were missing the MOTW: https://malwaretips.com/threads/checklab-pl-test-of-free-antivirus.96680/#post-847014 .

    Then there is this tidbit from the details of Check Lab's testing methodology:
    https://checklab.pl/en/publications...ing-checklab-website-dedicated-security-tests

    I'll leave it to the WD fanboys to sort it all out.
     
    Last edited: Nov 30, 2019
  11. Hiltihome

    Hiltihome Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2013
    Posts:
    887
    Location:
    Baden Germany
    One don't have to be a WD fanboy, to realize, that those "tests", are good for nothing.
     
  12. itman

    itman Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2010
    Posts:
    7,904
    Location:
    U.S.A.
    Whether MOTW was present or not also might be an academic one. In the latest MRG real-time test, samples were downloaded via their URL source using Chrome. WD also scored poorly in the in-the-wild and exploit/fileless malware test segments: https://www.mrg-effitas.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/MRG_Effitas_2019Q3_360.pdf
     
    Last edited: Nov 30, 2019
  13. Hiltihome

    Hiltihome Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2013
    Posts:
    887
    Location:
    Baden Germany
    Lists of URL sources are real world?
    WD is build to protect users in real world, not to score high in synthetic real world.
     
  14. Bertazzone

    Bertazzone Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2018
    Posts:
    279
    Location:
    Milan, Italia
    Why post about WD in this thread then?
     
    Last edited: Nov 30, 2019
Loading...
  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.