AV-TEST Advanced Threat Protection (ATP) AV.TEST test January - June 2025

[monkeylove]

If I see potential problems, then I have the capability to perform verification testing myself.

The historical performance of an AV over many years is probably the best guide, but that provides virtually no assurance that the product will protect at the moment that it needs to protect. AV test labs, Youtube testers, other types of AV testers or reviewers - they're data points for consideration.

My suggestion is for people to not be paranoid, not be too focused on security software, and to use what they like and stick with it. Then move onto other better, more constructive uses of their time.

There's a lot of people out there that just want to play with as many security software as they can, mash it up, talk about them, compare notes, ... and I get it.

Since you're claiming that various tests have such problems, then please prove your argument by presenting the reports where you verified tests.

Second, please prove your suggestion by presenting your own tests.

Finally, since you claim that you can verify tests on many other things, then prove that as well.

If you refuse to do so, then I'll know that you're trolling.

 

[monkeylove]

Even with sound security practices, best-in-class security solutions, highly secure baselines and configurations, and exceptionally safe online behaviors - at the end of the day there's only so much anyone or any organization can do.

At least for home users, most data and financial losses and abuses are not on their local system, but instead hacks of 3rd, 4th, 5th party systems that have their data on them. But nowadays it is mostly various forms of social engineering via different platforms and vectors that result in the most security problems. The thing with all that is the user is an active participant that determines the success or failure of the attempted data or financial theft and abuse.

This is a security software forum with a lot of people who want to focus upon security software, which is perfectly OK and to be expected, but there is far too much everyday focus on "install the best available AV." Security software has significant limitations to security overall and it is, without any doubt, the least significant piece of the security process.

The only people that argue that security software is a significant part of the security process are software developers with an agenda to promote their product. They will say things like "You cannot expect the average home user to understand so they best thing they can do is to install security software." What they really mean is for those home users to install their product.

Don't buy into any security software publisher's drivel.

From AV testers, you now attack AV developers. Given that, why not just advise forum members and even the public not to use any AV software at all?

And then stop accessing this forum?

 

[ForgottenSeer 94738]

 

[nickstar1]

I will say this Avast free is defiantly good sometimes scoring on par with Kaspersky. Gen digital has one of the biggest userbases and Avast's response time to threats is very fast. Avast free will keep a system protected especially if you enable hardened mode.

 

[Parkinsond]

Himself. But he won't tell you what to use.

Let's just ruin the party and leave

 

[rashmi]

Let's just ruin the party and leave

I made my exit with a charming companion once the party ran out of Comodo whisky ; can't be caught sipping water like these amateurs!

 

[cartaphilus]

Y'all, is this Wendy's?

 

[ForgottenSeer 114717]

Himself. But he won't tell you what to use.

Why would I tell you or anybody else what they need to use? Maybe you don't need to use anything at all?

 

[ForgottenSeer 114717]

Please prove that AV-Test is marketing AVs.

You really do need a reading comprehension program.

I never said that AV-Test is marketing AVs. What I said is that the test results are marketing tools.

Contact AV-Test. Request an application to participate in their testing. One of the sales staff will contact you. During that call or online exchange, they will explain that AV-Test assists those that participate to market their product through the testing subscription.

 

[ForgottenSeer 114717]

Are you also arguing that the results are fake?

I already addressed this question that you already asked previously. Go back and read my reply.

 

[ForgottenSeer 114717]

One more thing: they don't accept things blindly. Rather, they do so because they have to rely on testers and reviewers because they're too busy with other things. For example, I have a sister-in-law who's an investment banker, and she has no time to go to libraries and hire experts to verify AV tests.

I think you are lying but just in case that you aren't - if you do indeed have a sister-in-law investment banker, then she is financially well off more than enough to afford to pay someone to do the research for her or for her to hire a consultant.

I don't need to guess that if she does exist, and she's indeed an investment banker, then she's smart enough to figure things out all by herself. Bringing your sister-in-law into this discussion serves you no purpose. It proves nothing without your sister-in-law being here and providing her own perspective.

If y'all want to rely upon "testers and reviewers," then you have the right to do that. And whatever happens is 100% on you - and not on the testers or reviewers.

 

[ForgottenSeer 114717]

But AV tests results are studies!

No. They are not. They are merely tests. The word "studies" in the English language has a very specific study in the context of testing, and AV lab tests and Youtube tester tests are not studies.

You really do need that reading comprehension remedial program. It is obvious to anyone that reads your messed-up interpretations and logic that instead of posting here at MT, your time would be much better spent in learning to read English better. Your quality of life will greatly improve by doing so.

 

[ForgottenSeer 114717]

That's why earlier you said that you even have to hire industry experts to consult you!

Once again, you need to improve your reading comprehension skills.

I don't have to ask any experts about AVs and security - and most other things. I can figure it out by myself. Where necessary, I do hire a consultant.

 

[ForgottenSeer 114717]

And you think everyone else who looks at AV tests can and should do the same.

Nope. They don't have to do anything. They can do what they want.

Hint: What you're attempting to do is not working.

 

[ForgottenSeer 114717]

From AV testers, you now attack AV developers. Given that, why not just advise forum members and even the public not to use any AV software at all?

And then stop accessing this forum?

Do you actually believe yourself? How could any reasonable person arrive at your interpretations - of not just my posts - but the countless posts of others that you have reacted similarly to?

I am willing to always give anybody the benefit of doubt, but looking at your considerable post history a reasonable person can only arrive at a single conclusion - that you do not participate in good faith and you deliberately make absurd, twisted interpretations of others' statements. It is obvious from your post history that you live here at MT to do exactly that - twist others' words and create drama. I mean, it's different if you disagree, but your perspectives are really messed-up and I and others have a really difficult time accepting that you are not doing it all very deliberately.

Hey man, whomever you are - you got problems. You should get yourself checked-out for your own welfare. And make a serious effort to improve your reading comprehension. I wish you well. I really do.

 

[Trident]

That AV tests are much more useful to the seller/developer/vendor this is a very well known fact. Vendors are spending sweet money to get these awards, recognitions, bars and certificates, not because they wanna see where their detections are failing—this is something every manager in the company knows.

The tests sell. Often, vendors will cut and crop. Example, someone outperforms Bitdefender (could be Kaspersky). Bitdefender crops Kaspersky out and displays Avast and Norton which have been outperformed by them. It’s all these little tactics that are actually major factors in this industry.

 

[Victor M]

But if we don't select https interception, then we will get to see the full report ?

 

[Trident]

But if we don't select https interception, then we will get to see the full report ?

I am talking about images that I’ve seen on Bitdefender pages (generated by them) and have verified that Bitdefender made themselves look as if they were best on the test, by leaving other vendors out.

It’s not just BD. The AV tests and awards are one of the most major factors. Users don’t understand your gradient-boosted decision trees from the random forest type or your yara rules and behavioural profiles. But they understand 4 vertical bars.