aum Posted October 19, 2019 Share Posted October 19, 2019 Malware protection test: https://www.av-comparatives.org/comparison/?usertype=consumer&chart_chart=chart9&chart_year=2019&chart_month=9&chart_sort=1&chart_zoom=2 False alarm test: https://www.av-comparatives.org/comparison/?usertype=consumer&chart_chart=chart6&chart_year=2019&chart_month=9&chart_sort=1&chart_zoom=0 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steven36 Posted October 19, 2019 Share Posted October 19, 2019 Those test can't be right because as far as i know all Antivirus have false positives and some got a 0 and avira only got one and when i used it flaged everything as malware . Test any of them against a collection of old cracks and you will see . They not using very good samples to test for false positives, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suley Posted October 19, 2019 Share Posted October 19, 2019 Personally prefer to use Kaspersky its heavy but its reliable Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steven36 Posted October 19, 2019 Share Posted October 19, 2019 7 minutes ago, suley said: Personally prefer to use Kaspersky its heavy but its reliable That's the thing about these test people going to use what they going to use a lot people still use Kaspersky because it has trial reset and stolen keys . I use to use Kaspersky tell it got to Heavy then i switch to Avast Free for a few years , then I switch to NOD32 for years tell keys got hard to find . So I switched back to Avast on Windows 8.1 now there is Windows Defender that most people use . People who always paid are not going to switch from one thing to next just because of any test , only time i ever switched is if one failed me , or it has to much false positives , or activating became a hassle my own testing not there's . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sylence Posted October 20, 2019 Share Posted October 20, 2019 14 hours ago, suley said: Personally prefer to use Kaspersky its heavy but its reliable The chart says that Kaspersky Compromised 0.1% but Microsoft Defender Compromised 0%. and Microsoft Defender isn't as much heavy and it's free. enough said Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete 12 Posted October 20, 2019 Share Posted October 20, 2019 Using Malwarebytes , Zemana , Hitman Pro as second-opinion scanners , next to ESET ...................never "bandits" on my rig ! If one of them failed to catch something , the other(s) will catch it .............. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zanderthunder Posted October 20, 2019 Share Posted October 20, 2019 19 hours ago, aum said: Malware protection test: https://www.av-comparatives.org/comparison/?usertype=consumer&chart_chart=chart9&chart_year=2019&chart_month=9&chart_sort=1&chart_zoom=2 False alarm test: https://www.av-comparatives.org/comparison/?usertype=consumer&chart_chart=chart6&chart_year=2019&chart_month=9&chart_sort=1&chart_zoom=0 The OP of the post somehow forgotten to include this one as well, don't just read the analysis from these 2 links alone: https://www.av-comparatives.org/tests/malware-protection-test-september-2019/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Israeli_Eagle Posted October 20, 2019 Share Posted October 20, 2019 2 hours ago, Sylence said: and Microsoft Defender isn't as much heavy and it's free. enough said Enjoy the false alerts! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mouth of Sauron Posted October 20, 2019 Share Posted October 20, 2019 Whole bunch of them uses complicated and advanced, bleeding edge heuristics, which is a paramount for user security today. [SARCASM] That's about why I use something lightweight and never heuristics (or 'help users by submitting...'). AV marvel of heuristics is somewhat easy to prove, in (like): - renaming any file to 'crack.com', resulting in positive - detecting INT13 (or whatever is it called, it was ages when I last time looked at it) - direct disk access, which is totally legitimate, but no! It's a virus... And then by 'submitting' or 'report false positive', they don't do anything - same files are still reported for years. This include my own fake 'malware' - I think most of AVs have it in libraries, so users are safe from me I hope it will become classified something fancy, such as win32.mordor.family.typeA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zanderthunder Posted October 20, 2019 Share Posted October 20, 2019 3 hours ago, Sylence said: The chart says that Kaspersky Compromised 0.1% but Microsoft Defender Compromised 0%. and Microsoft Defender isn't as much heavy and it's free. enough said But then, Microsoft Defender provides "very basic" protection compared to other anti-malware solutions. Plus, there are lots of false detection too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silentuser12 Posted October 20, 2019 Share Posted October 20, 2019 I Don't see malware bytes in this test..isn't it good enough? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jramon2566 Posted October 20, 2019 Share Posted October 20, 2019 1 hour ago, silentuser12 said: I Don't see malware bytes in this test..isn't it good enough? MalwareBytes is not an antivirus as such but a complementary tool Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zanderthunder Posted October 20, 2019 Share Posted October 20, 2019 3 minutes ago, jramon2566 said: MalwareBytes is not an antivirus as such but a complementary tool MalwareBytes and HitmanPro is actually a second opinion anti-malware solution. While both of these programs are good, but also notorious for false positive detection too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jramon2566 Posted October 20, 2019 Share Posted October 20, 2019 4 minutes ago, Edward Raja said: MalwareBytes and HitmanPro is actually a second opinion anti-malware solution. While both of these programs are good, but also notorious for false positive detection too. exactly, that's why I always say that the best protection against viruses and malware is the user and common sense. 😎 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zanderthunder Posted October 20, 2019 Share Posted October 20, 2019 1 minute ago, jramon2566 said: exactly, that's why I always say that the best protection against viruses and malware is the user and common sense. 😎 and both combined as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mouth of Sauron Posted October 20, 2019 Share Posted October 20, 2019 Malwarebytes is basically all you need - slightly better if you have a paid/cracked version, but Free fits my need. The books of today needs correction - antiVIRUS is name kept for it's popularity, it's as unlikely that you're going to acquire *real* virus that fits its definition is the same you get hit by a meteor. I've seen the last true virus more than 2 decades ago. It's a kinda hobby for me to look what happens on 'dark' side, and finding a masterpiece of programming, efficiency and innovations is often easier to find here, than in legal uses. If you're interested, try researching the first virus that is still on my top5 list: Google (or whatever you use) for - "dark avenger" virus bulgaria - and see what that kid (15 years then) made of 1,500 bytes, how many new and ingenious techniques he used in that small code and, ultimately, WHY he made that virus in the first place - it was mostly harmless, and motivation is somewhat educational - he grew sick and tired about some know-nothing antivirus 'expert' from bulgaria, who charged hard money for his quackery - much like heuristics does. Later there were more ingenious viruses and malware, fun read if you're interested. Most of them weren't nearly so innocent, though. But last or year before that, some unknown guy defining himself as 'grayhat' hacked whole site of some italian branch of american 'almost-state owned anto-hacker division', because they 'acted too high and mighty' - guy used 3 day0 exploits and some very clever techniques to get them out of their shoes. His attack was solely against 'the loud guys' and he just showed how much damage he could've caused if he was malicious - against 'heavy-elite' getting fat on customers money. I find distinctive similarity between high-costing AV software sold as 'a service' with subscription and all, selling snake-oli in the form of heuristic (but some other 'revolutionary' systems as well) - not exactly just fear-mongers, but people getting fat and lazy creating software abominations and resource-hogs slowing computer to a crawl, if not properly configured. And some even can't be properly configured. Malwarebytes is kinda exception - I use free - and so is HitmanPro. I always use free Malwarebytes and AV from time to time - as said by many, common sense is the best defense. I could say nice things about SpyHunter too, except there is no free version, but we're on this forum, so there's that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Administrator DKT27 Posted October 20, 2019 Administrator Share Posted October 20, 2019 On 10/19/2019 at 10:59 PM, steven36 said: Those test can't be right because as far as i know all Antivirus have false positives and some got a 0 and avira only got one and when i used it flaged everything as malware . Test any of them against a collection of old cracks and you will see . They not using very good samples to test for false positives, I doubt any of the AV testers ever use any fixes to test false positives, they use only real official files. If they would be using fixes to test AVs then all AVs out there would have had above 90% of false positive rates in them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sylence Posted October 21, 2019 Share Posted October 21, 2019 13 hours ago, Israeli_Eagle said: Enjoy the false alerts! false positives are better than compromise 12 hours ago, Edward Raja said: But then, Microsoft Defender provides "very basic" protection compared to other anti-malware solutions. Plus, there are lots of false detection too. The chart says that Kaspersky Compromised 0.1% but Microsoft Defender Compromised 0%. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zanderthunder Posted October 21, 2019 Share Posted October 21, 2019 2 hours ago, Sylence said: false positives are better than compromise The chart says that Kaspersky Compromised 0.1% but Microsoft Defender Compromised 0%. Don't trust too much on the charts, rookie. Besides, I compared also with AV-Test to as a second opinion. https://www.av-test.org/en/antivirus/home-windows/ https://www.av-test.org/en/antivirus/business-windows-client/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radpop Posted October 21, 2019 Share Posted October 21, 2019 Windows Defender is so good and light, and moreover, Windows 10 is so safe compared to earlier versions of Windows. Btw. Linux is nowadays virus mainstream. 🤣 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zanderthunder Posted October 21, 2019 Share Posted October 21, 2019 7 hours ago, DKT27 said: I doubt any of the AV testers ever use any fixes to test false positives, they use only real official files. If they would be using fixes to test AVs then all AVs out there would have had above 90% of false positive rates in them. Agreed. That's why AV Tests are not that comprehensive. I also watch The PC Security Channel on YouTube, and the malware analyst did test comprehensively by testing more than what AV Testers do. https://www.youtube.com/user/ThePCSecurity/videos Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sylence Posted October 21, 2019 Share Posted October 21, 2019 4 hours ago, Edward Raja said: Don't trust too much on the charts, rookie. Besides, I compared also with AV-Test to as a second opinion. https://www.av-test.org/en/antivirus/home-windows/ https://www.av-test.org/en/antivirus/business-windows-client/ oh i know, i don't trust them so much. one time they put Kaspersky on top and the other day they put some unknown AV on top. I'm telling from experience that Microsoft Defender, on the latest Windows 10 versions (1903) or Insider fast ring build 19002 (20H1), is superior to other AVs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zanderthunder Posted October 21, 2019 Share Posted October 21, 2019 3 minutes ago, Sylence said: oh i know, i don't trust them so much. one time they put Kaspersky on top and the other day they put some unknown AV on top. I'm telling from experience that Microsoft Defender, on the latest Windows 10 versions (1903) or Insider fast ring build 19002 (20H1), is superior to other AVs. nonetheless, the best protection against viruses and malware is the getting a good anti-malware solution, user and common sense. besides, enterprises or even businesses don't trust Microsoft Defender. I too tell from experience as I worked on some of the engineering firms, 3rd party endpoint protection is better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pc71520 Posted October 21, 2019 Share Posted October 21, 2019 I've lost my faith in antivirus software since 2008. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sylence Posted October 21, 2019 Share Posted October 21, 2019 50 minutes ago, Edward Raja said: nonetheless, the best protection against viruses and malware is the getting a good anti-malware solution, user and common sense. besides, enterprises or even businesses don't trust Microsoft Defender. I too tell from experience as I worked on some of the engineering firms, 3rd party endpoint protection is better. Enterprise do trust Microsoft Defender and there are all kinds of Enterprises, not every one of them use the same software of course. also Enterprises have access to Microsoft Defender Advanced Threat Protection (ATP) and Microsoft Advanced Threat Analytics (ATA) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.