AV-TEST Windows XP Protection Report: Qihoo 360 at Top with 100% Block Rate

[budda]

http://www.360safe.com/news/?cat=1

Windows XP has been “retired” for a month since Microsoft ended support of the operating system on April 8^th2014. The World Authoritative Testing Institute (AV-TEST) recently examined ten anti-virus software solutions to measure their protection capabilities against efforts to exploit Windows XP security vulnerabilities. During the test, Qihoo 360 Internet Security 9 blocked 100% of attacks (54 out of 54).

Edited May 9, 2014 by budda

[iih1]

Hi, budda do you realize...

I'm not referring to your AV test, because not tested by independent AV test

of course you agree you're qihoo 360 users..and above tested by qihoo..... :showoff:

[dcs18]

Yep, it's a self-gratification advertisement by Qihoo 360 - attempting to pat their own back.

[rudrax]

Is that a way to get popular? Really that's an epic fail effort :rofl:

[DarkSlayer]

How can we trust something that has Norton as "one of the best"...? :wtf:

[exodius]

Haha... funny, kaspersky is the best for XP till now.. :rofl: :lmao:

http://www.av-test.org/en/tests/home-user/windows-xp/sepoct-2013/

[AlexCross]

Funny that Qihoo uses Bitdefender's engine, but still bitdefender got ~50% :))

Edited May 9, 2014 by AlexCross

[software182]

Norton, i thought you're dead :troll:

[Alanon]

Cmon guys, which AV company doesn't engage in self-promotion?

[viggen66]

What about eset? I'm still using XP

[rahuldohare]

What about eset? I'm still using XP

the best protection of the world and it is best for windows xp

[sirri]

FYI,as I am not AV fan but try to objectively. See clear result and read carefully report provided Qihoo. Full at http://www.av-test.com/tests/projects/AV-TEST_XP_Exploit_Test_April_2014.pdf

By looking at these numbers it is possible to determine products that have generic techniques to

detect and protect from exploits. Products that detect less samples than before are likely to have

static signatures or weak heuristics that can be easily fooled by real attackers. Kingsoft, Norton and

Qihoo 360 are not fooled by evasion or obfuscation in this test. Also Kaspersky only misses out on

two samples here. Interestingly, the missed cases of Kaspersky all use the messagebox payload,

which of course wouldn’t be used in a real attack. All samples using more intrusive payloads (such as

reverse shell or execution of a binary) are detected reliably by the product.

The following tables show which products were able to handle which exploit. ‘All’ is given when all

samples have been detected, ‘Some’ is given when at least one sample is not detected and ‘None’ is

given when no sample was detected.

As can be seen, most products have a solid detection of most exploits. Norton and Qihoo 360 cover

all vulnerabilities completely. Bitdefender doesn’t cover one vulnerability, Avast, Avira Kaspersky and

Kingsoft have misses in case of two vulnerabilities. AVG, ESET and Tencent have misses in at least

three cases.

One note has to be made regarding the products that perform well: Not every detection is generic.

They also provide static detection (signatures) to detect certain exploits or even MetaSploit modules.

So a good result in this test is not a guarantee that they will generically detect all attacks in real life.

But the probability that they will detect more new attacks is high.

Conclusion

With the end of support for Windows XP as of April 8th 2014 this still widely deployed system is at

risk, more than ever before. The problem is not commodity malware but the problem will be exploits

for yet undetected vulnerabilities that will not be patched by Microsoft anymore. Therefore it will be

one of the main tasks for anti-virus software to deliver reliably exploit detection when trying to

protect Windows XP:

There are basically two possibilities to detect attacks by exploits:

1. Statically by signatures, that will detect certain versions of a specific exploit

2. Generically, to detect the techniques used by exploits instead of detecting the exploit itself

Products that have a good coverage in exploit protection will use both techniques, as neither is

enough to prevent all attacks. Older and known exploits can be covered with static signatures, but

vendors have to be careful to also cover obfuscated variants. New, unknown or heavily obfuscated

exploits will be detected with generic approaches that look for typical behavior of exploits.

As the results of the above testing have shown, Qihoo 360, Kaspersky and Norton provide a very

good protection rate against exploits that target Windows components. All of these products use a

combined approach in detecting attacks, as described above.

[dcs18]

What about eset? I'm still using XP

You don't have anything to worry about ESET - it's your XP that I'm more concerned about. :(

[spudboy]

What about eset? I'm still using XP

the best protection of the world and it is best for windows xp

Not true, but anyways..... that site is a joke. av-comparitives is much better.

[viggen66]

Just a concern, XP has been updated for more than 12 years, is it possible that it still has bugs / vulnerability through out this huge years of reviews, I can't believe that a software that has been viewed and reviewed so many times is still vulnerable, every version of Windows is, if you don't install any Av, so I shouldn't even use Windows 8 or 7 because it still hasn't the may 2014 updates, so this set of thoughts is not safe to use it at all, the same happens to XP, how many computers out there are using XP even 2000 without updates and are running without problems, for me this only a marketing hype to increase sales for Microsoft

Edited May 10, 2014 by viggen66

[dcs18]

XP is infested with more bugs than a Mumbai Motel - it's been abandoned by it's own Maker - Microsoft, and discarded by the Prudent.

If I were a XP User, I'd shift loyalties without a blink to another OS - any OS . . . . . . . . . . . . be it of Windows, Mac or even Linux breed.

[viggen66]

XP is infested with more bugs than a Mumbai Motel - it's been abandoned by it's own Maker - Microsoft, and discarded by the Prudent.

If I were a XP User, I'd shift loyalties without a blink to another OS - any OS . . . . . . . . . . . . be it of Windows, Mac or even Linux breed.

Actually I had installed Windows 8.1 update, original MSDM ISO, and one day as I was shuthing down the computer, it simply hang, really a bugless OS that it simply won't shut down properly,btw this is really a serious issue here, and on XP albeit being old and having naturally another software architecture doesn't have tons of background services running under the wood, making it very fast when compared with newer OS, also when you install an ISO fully updated until April 2014, you will have the fastest XP ever, without tons of files replaced with windows update.

[dcs18]

Actually I had installed Windows 8.1 update, original MSDM ISO, and one day as I was shuthing down the computer, it simply hang, really a bugless OS that it simply won't shut down properly,btw this is really a serious issue here

From Windows 8 to the 8.1 and presently, to the 8.1 Update - have never personally had this issue (not even on my Windows 7 Ultimate.)

However, it can happen to any flavor of Windows - the modern ones call for a higher hardware specification than the XP.

In any case, if Windows does not suit you - there's always a fallback in Mac or even Linux (as hinted in my previous post.)

and on XP albeit being old and having naturally another software architecture doesn't have tons of background services running under the wood, making it very fast when compared with newer OS,

Services depend on the software that you install and how you install them - FWIW, you can always use the Black Viper site for services optimizations.

also when you install an ISO fully updated until April 2014, you will have the fastest XP ever, without tons of files replaced with windows update.

The fastest XP exists only within the max RAM threshold of 3 GB - XP cannot exploit RAM beyond that threshold which a modern OS can. Today, I had the privilege of checking out an installation with 64 GB of RAM.

Today, it's not common to find folks on 3 GB RAM - most systems ship with 4 GB.

[viggen66]

I tell you what i'm going to do, i'm going to give Windows 8.1 Update another shot, albeit liking XP

[dcs18]

I tell you what i'm going to do, i'm going to give Windows 8.1 Update another shot, albeit liking XP

If you need any help we'll stand by - all the very best. :)

[CODYQX4]

.

Edited April 28, 2019 by CODYQX4

[viggen66]

My laptop has 3 gigs and I have installed Windows 8,it's happening the same stuff, it won't shut down properly waiting for more than 5 minutes gonna leave it like that

Edited May 10, 2014 by viggen66

[viggen66]

I think this has to do with the internal defrag from Windows 8, if i'm not mistaken, the other time it didn't shut down after I ran this tool

[darko999]

Windows 7 ultimate its faster than 8.1, just saying.

[dcs18]

In the day, my Windows 8.1 Update, Pro is faster than my Windows 7 Ultimate - at night, my Windows 7 Ultimate is faster than my Windows 8.1 Update, Pro (in my dreams.) :showoff:

Edited May 11, 2014 by dcs18