Kaspersky, Norton & ESET Shine In Independent Antivirus Lab Test

[Nico@FMA]

Content source

http://sdpcfix.com/computer-security/kaspersky-norton-eset-shine-independent-antivirus-lab-test/

Dennis Technology Labs recently conducted a test to find out how effective a handful of popular home internet security products are against cyberattacks.

The testing process involved running the security suites through two distinct tests, one to see how they stand up against security threats and the second to see how they handle legitimate programs.

The study included a “guest” antivirus product, Malwarebytes Anti-Malware (Free) despite the software lacking real-time protection and malicious URL blocking features. This decision was made since Malwarebytes Anti-Malware Free was added to the mix because it claims to protect from new online threats that other antivirus cannot detect.

To test the effectiveness against attacks, each internet security suite / antivirus software was exposed to an actual malicious website and rated on how it defended the system against a threat to prevent it from getting infected, neutralized a threat if it managed to sneak onto the system or failed to stop the exploit and associated malware altogether.

As far as the treatment of legitimate programs go, each product was graded on whether or not it allows legitimate software to be installed without requiring any type of verification from the end-user.

Internet Security / Antivirus Software Test Results (Home Edition)
Dennis Technology Labs issues different awards depending on how well a product scored: AAA, AA, B, and C.

Kaspersky Internet Security 2014, Norton Internet Security and ESET Smart Security all came out on top, earning the AAA certification from Dennis Labs. Avast! Free Antivirus proved that it’s the best choice if you don’t want to pay for protection with an AA rating.

Meanwhile, Malwarebytes Anti-Malware Free and Microsoft Security Essentials fell short of falling into any award bracket.

Well IMO correct.

See here the full PDF with test results

 

[Kate_L]

Avast! Free Antivirus looks good in this test.

 

[Nico@FMA]

I am staring to be a "fan" of this Dennis labs. They seem to do proper tests and come up with good results regardless of brand.
Sure about testing there is a lot to be said, but the fact that they go head to head across the whole spectrum of a package is something that i do like as it shows a programs real colors.

Having lets say spam filter vs spam filter without full program support does not reflect its capability.
But having spam f vs spam f as a whole program so the whole package together is something i really like.

 

[Kate_L]

I wonder, why they don't test more products ?

 

[Nico@FMA]

I wonder, why they don't test more products ?

Well i dunno however i could image that they do not add Bitdefender clones and other clones to the testing as it does not contribute IMO.
And it seems this was a selective test based upon products that are pretty much on the same page.
I mean lets take this scenario:
AVG versus Kaspersky that would be a no contest situation as no matter how good AVG would be it would look BAD by default versus KAV.
So i think they did grab a few products that match each other and did trow in a few odd balls.
But thats just a wild guess.

 

[nissimezra]

nice thx for sharing
I just wonder how old the samples used, coz norton doesn't preform so good here when scanning zero day

 

[MrExplorer]

In all test by MalwareDoctor, ThePcSecurityChannel, Manzai & many other test KIS is not performing good how come they perform good in their test.

 

[Nico@FMA]

In all test by MalwareDoctor, ThePcSecurityChannel, Manzai & many other test KIS is not performing good how come they perform good in their test.

There are various reasons for it, and one of them is the fact its professionally tested using rock solid methodology and utilizing specialist personnel who do understand what they are doing using a NON-VM test server/machine.
For example yes..here is my Symantec story again lol (Sorry that i use them as example but i happen to know virtually all that is there to be known about their products so to make a accurate example i use them) If tests by users and some dubious magazine tests would be a prelude of what to expect from Symantec then it would mean Symantec is probably the worse brand in human history.
Yet no brand other then Sophos comes even close to their protection on a industrial network.
So how would you explain that? I mean the tests claim their product is "average" does that not strike you ass odd?

That said there are a few brands: Kaspersky, ESET, Sophos, Symantec that just have a edge towards others and the reason for this is simple:

1: They have the resources and network & experience.
2: A fully developed and totally proven product with own technology.
3: Own R&D and a HUGE partner program.
4: They are very matured companies that set one standard after another and everyone else just follows later...

Those are just a few basic examples.
I am not saying that other brands are bad or so but my point is the mentioned brands are by default quality products with quality service and sophisticated and proven quality technology.
Not to mention years and years track record being at the top of their game.

Other brands in their own way try to be innovative but what they achieve while impressive has already been achieved years ago by the "top" brands.
While the top brands certainly generate money they focus on protection and focus on R&D utilizing their huge infrastructure.

Thats something other brands can only dream off. It takes years and years to even mimic that.

Back on topic in regards to this test for what it is worth, it is just a custom test i assume that they only test products that are partnered or so hence why some are left out and some other reasons as i said in my previous posts.
So what do you want me to say? I can hardly say that others are crap, but i can neither say that other products are on the same page.
See?

 

[MrExplorer]

There are various reasons for it, and one of them is the fact its professionally tested using rock solid methodology and utilizing specialist personnel who do understand what they are doing using a NON-VM test server/machine.
For example yes..here is my Symantec story again lol (Sorry that i use them as example but i happen to know virtually all that is there to be known about their products so to make a accurate example i use them) If tests by users and some dubious magazine tests would be a prelude of what to expect from Symantec then it would mean Symantec is probably the worse brand in human history.
Yet no brand other then Sophos comes even close to their protection on a industrial network.
So how would you explain that? I mean the tests claim their product is "average" does that not strike you ass odd?

That said there are a few brands: Kaspersky, ESET, Sophos, Symantec that just have a edge towards others and the reason for this is simple:

1: They have the resources and network & experience.
2: A fully developed and totally proven product with own technology.
3: Own R&D and a HUGE partner program.
4: They are very matured companies that set one standard after another and everyone else just follows later...

Those are just a few basic examples.
I am not saying that other brands are bad or so but my point is the mentioned brands are by default quality products with quality service and sophisticated and proven quality technology.
Not to mention years and years track record being at the top of their game.

Other brands in their own way try to be innovative but what they achieve while impressive has already been achieved years ago by the "top" brands.
While the top brands certainly generate money they focus on protection and focus on R&D utilizing their huge infrastructure.

Thats something other brands can only dream off. It takes years and years to even mimic that.

Back on topic in regards to this test for what it is worth, it is just a custom test i assume that they only test products that are partnered or so hence why some are left out and some other reasons as i said in my previous posts.
So what do you want me to say? I can hardly say that others are crap, but i can neither say that other products are on the same page.
See?

Yes, I do agree that they test with a great bunch on techniques, malware samples & many other ways, so it would differ from normal VM test but still performing 100% is something nearly impossible.

I didn't get it, you are on the kaspersky side or just correcting me.

 

[Nico@FMA]

Yes, I do agree that they test with a great bunch on techniques, malware samples & many other ways, so it would differ from normal VM test but still performing 100% is something nearly impossible.

I didn't get it, you are on the kaspersky side or just correcting me.

Well i only gave you my opinion, i am not even on Symantec side for that matter because i do not care much about what brand is running on the Network if it achieves the results i want and my clients want. And if this is wakkyduda AV then so be it.

 

[Moose]

Greeting!

Kaspersky, without question has the edge over other vendors! Especially, in the cleaning of Mal-ware Department!
Just an opinion!

 

[randj89]

In all test by MalwareDoctor, ThePcSecurityChannel, Manzai & many other test KIS is not performing good how come they perform good in their test.

You know i have to really talk on this one! with all respect i don't like this self done tests just because they don't have the resources to run all the products they want to test simultaneously and they prove nothing. to achieve a real test for me it should be done as the labs do. if you want to test let's say 12 antivirus programs you should have obviously 12 computers with the same specs just to compare performance environment and most importantly to test all of this antivirus against the same threads to compare. how come you will do a test and then put it in a video not even explaining what your methods are or changing them to your likes. i've seen some of these videos testing more or less quantity of links, and recently i saw a video of an antivirus being tested and no scan on demand was done against a folder full of malware.... what does that tell me?.... well you can do whatever you want, whenever you want and sadly one antivirus at a time because you only have 1 or 2 computers.... plus on the video you talk whatever you want..... even with mistakes like yeah this product has average detection because it scored 11/12???? is that average????? you did just a simple and convenient test because you didn't have the actual time to run a smooth and credible test..... whatever.... all i want to say is that this self done tests have no credentials and no patterns..... the test is not simultaneous, the test is not the same for each program, the test is not being observed from a scientific perspective meaning that you need a period of observation and real test... if you really want to put an antivirus to test you should experiment the real way meaning to test monthly, constantly and consistently against the same threads at the same time for all the products... thats why i don't like this self tests they don't prove anything but what the creator wants you to see. there's no documentation and if i want to do a video of a specific product for you to see i could probably modify and show you what i really want.... i could redo it with different threads or different links to prove that "my favorite" product works and as for the ones i don't like i would make them look really bad..... the big point here is that there's no credentials and documentation as for what consistency i do give to my tests (and to be honest this is the way they should be done).... put it this way... if you want to test 3 cars against which one saves the more gasoline you should get 3 cars with the same tank size or cilinders, fill them up to the max and make them run the same amount of miles driving all of them at the same speed rate or mph (miles per hour)..... does this make sense? Yes for me it does and this is a matter of logic...


This comment goes to everyone that reads it but with no offenses driven to a specific person. As for replying to Mr Explorer im trying to explain why KIS does bad on self done test (man the way they test its just not viable).

 

[Nico@FMA]

You know I have to really talk on this one! With all respect I don't like this self done tests just because they don't have the resources to run all the products they want to test simultaneously AND THEY PROVE NOTHING. To achieve a real test for me it should be done as the labs do. If you want to test LET'S SAY 12 antivirus programs you should have obviously 12 computers with the same specs just to compare performance environment AND MOST IMPORTANTLY TO TEST ALL OF THIS ANTIVIRUS AGAINST THE SAME THREADS TO COMPARE. How come you will do a test and then put it in a video not even explaining what your methods are or changing them to your likes. I've seen some of these videos testing more or less quantity of links, and recently I saw a video of an antivirus being tested and no scan on demand was done against a folder full of malware.... What does that tell me?.... Well you can do whatever you want, whenever you want and sadly one antivirus at a time because you only have 1 or 2 computers.... Plus on the video you talk whatever you want..... even with mistakes like yeah this product has average after detection because it scored 11/12???? WHAT is that average????? YOU DID JUST A SIMPLE AND CONVENIENT TEST BECAUSE YOU DIDN'T HAVE THE ACTUAL TIME TO RUN A SMOOTH AND CREDIBLE TEST..... WHATEVER.... All I want to say IS THAT this self done tests have no credentials and no patterns..... The test is not simultaneous, the test is not the same for each program, the test is not being observed from a scientific perspective meaning that you need a period of observation and REAL TEST... IF YOU REALLY WANT TO PUT AN ANTIVIRUS TO TEST YOU SHOULD EXPERIMENT THE REAL WAY MEANING to test monthly, constantly and consistently against the same threads at the same time for all the products... Thats why I don't like this self tests they don't prove anything but what the creator wants you to see. There's no documentation and if I want to do a video of a specific product for you to see I could probably modify and show you what I really want.... I could redo it with different threads or different links to prove that "MY FAVORITE" product works and as for the ones I don't like I would make them look really bad..... THE BIG POINT HERE IS THAT THERE'S NO CREDENTIALS AND DOCUMENTATION AS FOR WHAT CONSISTENCY I DO GIVE TO MY TESTS (AND TO BE HONEST THIS IS THE WAY THEY SHOULD BE DONE).... Put it this way... if you want to test 3 cars against which one saves the more gasoline you should get 3 cars with the same tank size or cilinders, fill them up to the max and make them run the same amount of miles driving all of them at the same speed rate or mph (miles per hour)..... Does this make sense? YES FOR ME IT DOES AND THIS IS A MATTER OF LOGIC...

THIS COMMENT GOES TO EVERYONE THAT READS IT BUT WITH NO OFFENSES DRIVEN TO a specific PERSON. AS FOR REPLYING TO MREXPLORER IM TRYING TO EXPLAIN WHY KIS DOES BAD ON SELF DONE TEST (MAN THE WAY THEY TEST ITS JUST NOT VIABLE).

Alright please trim down on the caps a bit because it makes your post look crappy.
Yet you said some valid things but i do think you should not be that harsh.

 

[randj89]

Alright please trim down on the caps a bit because it makes your post look crappy.
Yet you said some valid things but i do think you should not be that harsh.

Man you really find a way to argue with anyone here. I have seen lots of your threads and you always end having issues with people.... I think I use as many caps as I want and if you don't like it WHATEVER!

 

[Nico@FMA]

Man you really find a way to argue with anyone here. I have seen lots of your threads and you always end having issues with people.... I think I use as many caps as I want and if you don't like it WHATEVER!

@randj89
How on earth do you see that as arguing m8? I am just trying to be helpful to you as you posted valid info but its kinda weird to read so hence i said something about it, not to mention the forum rules say so:

2. Your post should be meaningful and without excessive formatting. << Click to see rules) But here is a quote:

• + Use a title that describes the content of your post. Don't use all caps or special characters to draw attention.
• + Don't post just to increase your number of posts. Avoid short sentences or single word posts. If you have nothing relevant to say on a certain matter then don't post.
• + Do not bother making posts with only one or two words (e.g., "cool" or LOL) or a smile, or post simply to have the first reply in a thread. Such posts waste everyone's time and will be deleted. Posts saying "I agree", "+1", "this", "me too", or the equivalent are also routinely removed, so don't post them. If you aren't interested in a thread, skip the thread; don't post to tell us you aren't interested.
• + Excessive text formatting (bold, caps, font size) is not allowed. Use text formatting to highlight short passages only.

No argue or problem intended m8.
And yes you are right in your post even tho i personally think its a bit to black and white written.
But thats ok.
As for me getting into a argument with others is not completely true, sure discussions are there but thats what the forum is for.
Ask around here on MT i am really not such a argue freak as you might think i am.
However sometimes i do make a effort correcting some of these untrue myths.
Keep in mind we are all here to share/learn and observe knowledge while supporting, guiding and having fun with each other.
Really no harm intended.

So we cool again?

cheers

 

[randj89]

How on earth do you see that as arguing m8? I am just trying to be helpful to you as you posted valid info but its kinda weird to read so hence i said something about it, not to mention the forum rules say so:

2. Your post should be meaningful and without excessive formatting. << Click to see rules) But here is a quote:

• + Use a title that describes the content of your post. Don't use all caps or special characters to draw attention.
• + Don't post just to increase your number of posts. Avoid short sentences or single word posts. If you have nothing relevant to say on a certain matter then don't post.
• + Do not bother making posts with only one or two words (e.g., "cool" or LOL) or a smile, or post simply to have the first reply in a thread. Such posts waste everyone's time and will be deleted. Posts saying "I agree", "+1", "this", "me too", or the equivalent are also routinely removed, so don't post them. If you aren't interested in a thread, skip the thread; don't post to tell us you aren't interested.
• + Excessive text formatting (bold, caps, font size) is not allowed. Use text formatting to highlight short passages only.

No argue or problem intended m8.
And yes you are right in your posts even tho i personally think its a bit to black and white written.
But thats ok.
As for me getting into a argument with others is not completely true, sure discussions are there but thats what the forum is for.
Ask around here on MT i am really not such a argue freak as you might think i am.

Keep in mind we are all here to share/learn and observe knowledge while supporting, guiding and having fun with each other.

So we cool again?

cheers

Yeah I have no issues with you nor with anyone else! I'm cool! Im not trying to call attention here! But if you want to approach somebody respect is a good thing and private messages are nice.... I didn't read all of the rules and honestly I bet not everyone here does... Well since I'm not trouble maker I modified my comment.... So we cool again? Have a great day or great night don't know your time zone....

 

[Nico@FMA]

Yeah I have no issues with you nor with anyone else! I'm cool! Im not trying to call attention here! But if you want to approach somebody respect is a good thing and private messages are nice.... I didn't read all of the rules and honestly I bet not everyone here does... Well since I'm not trouble maker I modified my comment.... So we cool again? Have a great day or great night don't know your time zone....

As cool as it gets m8. I am not a trouble maker either.
So have a good one and in the future if you need help or such try me.

Cheers

 

[normalizerx]

Just a thought as it was a hot discussion on Wilders security forums (this test) - why they tested Malwarebytes free next to fully fledged IS suites. And how did Malwarebytes free have a block when the free version doesn't have realtime protection?

 

[Nico@FMA]

Just a thought as it was a hot discussion on Wilders security forums (this test) - why they tested Malwarebytes free next to fully fledged IS suites. And how did Malwarebytes free have a block when the free version doesn't have realtime protection?

The study included a “guest” antivirus product, Malwarebytes Anti-Malware (Free) despite the software lacking real-time protection and malicious URL blocking features. This decision was made since Malwarebytes Anti-Malware Free was added to the mix because it claims to protect from new online threats that other antivirus cannot detect.

On demand scanning and detection claims as described above.

 

[normalizerx]

OK, but they could at least use the trial version with real-time protection. Other antiviruses claim to protect 100% which is impossible, so what do we do with their "claims"? And how will it block even 1 threat without any real-time protection module? Don't get me wrong but I don't see this as normal - picking a software because it claims something. And having in mind that in the past Denis labs admitted to carry out tests ordered by Symantec with other AVs, pointed out by Symantec doesn't speak in their favour.