- Feb 24, 2017
- 1,661
that ESET thread is painful to read, most of what he's saying is not true. (i mean Marcos)
Last edited:
AV-Comparatives May 2017 test. Windows Defender did great!
- Thread starter Faybert
- Start date
- Jul 22, 2014
- 2,525
It's enough to check another month and the picture changes... I only cannot believe Trendmicro has a so high detection (100%)..and all the time....way different from other tests I saw and from Hub results.
- Jun 8, 2016
- 171
- Aug 19, 2016
- 200
- May 3, 2013
- 82
emsisoft goes down because some decisions depend on user to deal with and it didn't miss a lot 0.3%
we know avira has good definitions detection & same with WD nowadays (like others said, their definitions get up to date faster than many other companies on VT usually)
so it makes sense their detection rate is so high, if they are using older samples that have definitions
maybe they should turn off the definitions part of the AV program to test their other detection methods and see what happens?
(in a different category of tests, so people don't get confused i guess lol)
so it makes sense their detection rate is so high, if they are using older samples that have definitions
maybe they should turn off the definitions part of the AV program to test their other detection methods and see what happens?
(in a different category of tests, so people don't get confused i guess lol)
- May 9, 2017
- 145
Obviously Lockdown, at least not quite yet but most definitely they (WD team) appear to me to have finally dived into sharpening matters up and are on the forward march (so far).
No one is been a more stronger critic of WD (for very good reason) but it is of great interest to find them finally "in the competition" and making strides to the affirmative.
It still remains to be seen how far they will take it. It's their c0de, their system, if anyone can piece together a solid dragnet it SHOULD be them but aside from these most recent results, the takeaway I get is that they seem to found the ambition and drive to press ahead.
And to press ahead this far to this point, is a solid improvement and of course being taken serious notice of.
- Apr 17, 2011
- 9,224
This I agree with. Ther Hub results are not coming back 100% all the time. So not sure what they are smoking.
- Jun 5, 2014
- 220
as I said every time hub results are not good for determining if a product is good or not there are many problems in our hub tests. the hub is good for having some fun and testing the limits of a product and not to showing if a product is good or not.
AV-C real world tests copy pastes a couple 100 url's in the browser and trend has a aggressive web filtering so that is why they scored 100%.They don't do well in our hub because we are exposing them directly to binaries and not testing the infection chain and the vector itself.
- Jun 5, 2014
- 220
I'm not defending trend, I say that we give too much credit to our hub tests. our hub test is having some major problems.AV-C real world tests copy pastes a couple 100 url's in the browser and trend has a aggressive web filtering so that is why they scored 100%.They don't do well in our hub because we are exposing them directly to binaries and not testing the infection chain and the vector itself.
about the URL filtering, you can see the malware protection test.
https://www.av-comparatives.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/avc_mpt_201703_en.pdf
Last edited:
And yes you need to be good at detecting binaries too its just as important as having a good web filter
- May 3, 2013
- 82
at least in HUB test we know what we are testing and what the results is
Although the experiments in the hub are lacking some tests (performance/online banking...) but they showed us what can an AV do and how it handles Nowadays malwares
the difference between hub and av test lab is that HUB have a clear results while lab doesn't
Last edited:
- Feb 24, 2017
- 1,661
you can't, it's one module, the whole AV is signatures + cloud signatureswe know avira has good definitions detection & same with WD nowadays (like others said, their definitions get up to date faster than many other companies on VT usually)
so it makes sense their detection rate is so high, if they are using older samples that have definitions
maybe they should turn off the definitions part of the AV program to test their other detection methods and see what happens?
- Feb 24, 2017
- 1,661
exact opposite, we're not paid to test the product, we do it out of curiosity. why would you call that "not good", it's first hand experience not some paid down bs like these "independent" tests that the AV companies have to pay for...
- Jun 5, 2014
- 220
the samples here are sometimes outdated or false positive, sometimes they are not even harmful. another problem is the TIME, the products here are not testing all at the same time someone tests 1 hour later someone tests 1 day later is this sound logical to you?add to this time the moments that this samples was in the reference site that the thread owner is gonna download, the other problem is the sites and references that the person who posts the samples is gonna download files from it. as I said many times when a simple user like us can access this samples an av company can access them too and add the definition for them sooner than the others or update the cloud behavior detection for it. another problem is the dynamic tests, the dynamic tests here are full of flaws, some modules in av's are connected to each other, in some of them nearly you can not test the dynamic capability of it yet you see some people test the product. I myself follow the hub but just for fun and not for referencing it or choosing a product or advising it to others. the hub is some kinda toward some av vendors I'm not gonna name but it's not good to talk about it. there are other problems but I think this is enough.
- Feb 24, 2017
- 1,661
these tests, you claim are better, are done the same way, the samples are not fresh, and false positives shouldn't be a factor since it doesn't change the end result.
yes i kinda agree that in some tests, the person testing it sooner will have a harder time than the ones that test it later, due to some samples being nulled out by signatures.
but since these official AV tests don't define how the testing is done exactly, for all you know, they wait more with testing of products that pay more just to have better results..
- Feb 13, 2017
- 1,486
I think proving a product is good or not, is not the HUB's goal.
The real goal is to test a product with malware you might find in your mail box this evening for example, seeing how it reacts and especially dynamically.
At least here there is not the money factor that can distort the test with business contamination.
The real goal is to test a product with malware you might find in your mail box this evening for example, seeing how it reacts and especially dynamically.
At least here there is not the money factor that can distort the test with business contamination.
- Jun 5, 2014
- 220
it is all about resources, they have the resource to have the in the wild samples or unique ones, I'm not saying anything about if they get paid for the results or not nor I care about it, what I see is vendors who are participating in this tests which are a lot, so if they were paying for the results many of them would have opted out of this tests and advertise against the testing lab.not just this reason, I'm not gonna write since it will be a lot
.anyway, some of this testing labs are discussing their methodology with the participated vendors and I myself does not choose my av just based on a lab or a hub.
- Apr 28, 2017
- 326
Not only has Windows improved their signature game recently
But the Creators update is a GAME CHANGER for security
With their block options in Smart Screen and "Application from Windows Store only" option in App settings
Windows can now be ultra secure without 3rd party help
But the Creators update is a GAME CHANGER for security
With their block options in Smart Screen and "Application from Windows Store only" option in App settings
Windows can now be ultra secure without 3rd party help
Similar threads
