I dont have trust thier test casue are not association to real... Avast full detection.... this av is so poor even in Poland kids dont wanna instal it for free becasue its so sux.
thats not what the MH tests show
(lol, joke intended
)
but seriously, with the hardening settings that are posted in the Avast section, the 2017 version of Avast gets pretty damn good and not too heavy on the resources either
If you get a bad score in your exam, it doesn't mean squat. Not sure why users get upset easily.
exactly.
if we think like that we will change our AV every month or two depending on which AV take the highest score
this exactly. How many labs are out there doing these tests? and how many other youtubers too? (no offense to the good youtube testers
)
forget every month or two, you will be changing security setup every week or so lol.
They must be smoking the good stuff in poland...
If you set up Avast with everything to max with hardened mode on aggressive this thing is damn near impenetrable. Noticing I say "near" because nothing really is impenetrable.
lol thats what i said above, since thats what the general consensus seems to be around here too. by default it is not super good of course but after hardening it is much much better.
Allow me to help set some things straight here, as one of my biggest pet peeves is misinformation whether intentionally or other wise. This stems from the novice trying to assert themselves as some kind of GURU, attempting to inflate their egos, to the Developers, it does not matter, I will state what needs to be said.
The HUB:
The Hubs current and long time standing set up was not done so for "Product vs Product" comparing detection rates ect. It was set up and designed to run Static and Dynamic test on fresh samples to SUBMIT missed samples to Vendors and any BUG related issues that may have been produced along the way. This whole set up is intended to help the Developers and ALL their users, by helping improve products.
The Malware Hunters:
What they do for this Hub, can never receive enough recognition and praise. It is not a simple thing to go to a site like Malwr/Hybrid-Analysis, dig through samples finding all of the freshest, under 25 detection samples they can, submit them to Virus Total to ensure and post links to the detection rates, Submit them then to a Automated Sandbox to make sure they are indeed malicious, record all theses URLS from both places upon submitting to add to their post or the pack, then they have to execute the samples one at a time to make sure they are working samples, to weed out any corrupted, before they can zip the pack up, upload it to a sharing site, then create a thread with all the URLS and the sample pack. This takes many hours for one pack. These Hunters and Testers are out standing, and sacrifice much to help others world wide.
The Testers:
They sacrifice time as well, as it is no easy task to test correctly, meaning they need to run the Static test, then the dynamic, upon which every time a sample is executed they have to monitor the whole system, manually record changes, and take snapshots while doing so, this includes digging through the system in between each sample to all common places malware/files drop on the system for recording. If done correctly a small pack can take up to an hour to an hour and a half. They also need to keep everything organized so that when finished they can upload all of it to the thread.
I truly hope this reaches some of you, as these guys in the HUB deserve much praise for the efforts they impart.
amen to that !
the labs that do this testing and put out reports,
that is their job as in they get paid to do that lol
people in the hub doing testing on their own time are either, as you said, submitting stuff to AV companies to help them improve detection or product, or just want to see how their AV software config does on malware samples.
this is not directed to S3cur1ty 3nthu5145t, it is for others who take lab tests over MH tests or other "educated testers":
if you go to the hub and see the threads, you will see that the samples uploaded are actually pretty damn new. Probably not 0 hour old, but mostly 0 day old or so for sure.
So if you see thread posted, then people did their tests soon after, those results are pretty good basis to draw some conclusions on once you see a trend forming. But of course you cant draw 100% conclusion, even when you compile data from many (maybe 100s or more) different tests and account for time frame etc. But even then, there will be margin of error, standard deviations, confidence interval blah blah blah (from statistics). The lab's don't make or provide any of that type of analysis.
Only: x samples of this malware, y samples of that malware, z samples of that malware - no idea how old or new, settings used (without proof they can say what they want, but who knows), maybe the specific samples they chose are somehow biased to begin with to be detected better by some software vs other software, etc.
Then they say sometimes even that if user is presented with a popup, but choice is given to user, that counts against the software in that test...why?? I can understand the result being thrown out or not included in the overall result maybe, or classified under "User prompt" or somthing...but not understand why the tester counts that against the AV software.
If you are browsing this forum, doing work in MS word/excel/etc or ANY legitimate software and all of a sudden or randomly if your AV software pops up and says "this file is flagged/stopped because we think its bad, what you want to do?" and you are doing legitimate work or nothing questionable at least.... then who in their right mind would say "yes allow" especially on a randomly named file (as many malware ends up creating/being)??
Of course if you are doing questionable things, or other legit stuff that conflicts with AV software (ex, testing/creating software with unsigned files is one i can think of off the top of my head, but many other legit things that set off AV software sometimes, as you know...) and you see a popup from AV, then if you click yes allow for whatever file then if AV software fails to protect, you are screwed.