- Mar 25, 2014
- 398
Does ZoneAlarm ever participate in these type of tests? I've rarely seen it being included in any performance tests.
AV-Comparatives - Performance Test April 2019
- Thread starter bribon77
- Start date
- Dec 23, 2014
- 8,592
In the attack which I had in mind, most solutions on default settings would fail, because nothing is executed (in a standard way). Only the applications which are set to block loading any unknown DLL (default-deny) could be efficient. One could use AppGuard, H_C, Excubits Bouncer, or NVT SOB in this way. Yet, filtering DLLs makes life difficult as default-deny solution and can have an impact on performance, too.
Last edited:
- Jul 3, 2015
- 8,153
Thanks for clarification. Do you remember how the dll is loaded in this attack? It is not by rundll32?In the attack which I had in mind, most solutions on default settings would fail, because nothing is executed. Only the applications which are set to block loading any unknown DLL (default-deny) could be efficient. One could use AppGuard, H_C, Excubits Bouncer, or NVT SOB in this way. Yet, filtering DLLs makes life difficult as default-deny solution and can have an impact on performance, too.
- Oct 11, 2014
- 317
McAfee and ESET TOP of performance
- Aug 4, 2016
- 1,465
In my experience which is recently limited on the three PC's at home, I notice not one jot of a difference in moving very large files boot or anything else between AV solutions - I I gave this a try yesterday as was waiting for a delivery - Between Emsisoft, ESET IS & Norton Deluxe, (Dr. Web was on initially). Of course Emsisoft no longer participate in AV-Comparatives (good on them) but as I remember was quite heavy in their testing - As ESET was the last one I tried for fun it's still on
This PC at least isn't earth shattering but does have 16 GIG RAM which IMHO probably makes all the difference? As to the charts as to which AV catches the most evils the differences are so minute they are within any margin of error in any other testing regime, & anything above 95% is almost perfect, I feel. (I wish I had a 95% chance of being alive in one year) The charts start at 75%, one I looked at the other day started at 80% which is the only way any differences show up, fifteen years ago the differences were large, now I feel use the AV you like the most & suits the PC you use.
This PC at least isn't earth shattering but does have 16 GIG RAM which IMHO probably makes all the difference? As to the charts as to which AV catches the most evils the differences are so minute they are within any margin of error in any other testing regime, & anything above 95% is almost perfect, I feel. (I wish I had a 95% chance of being alive in one year) The charts start at 75%, one I looked at the other day started at 80% which is the only way any differences show up, fifteen years ago the differences were large, now I feel use the AV you like the most & suits the PC you use.
Last edited:
- Dec 23, 2014
- 8,592
The malicious DLL (or CPL) is loaded without executing rundll32.exe or another LOLBin. The exploit uses directly the API function LoadLibrary.
Having 16GB of RAM shouldn't have much of an impact on performance. Unless you have a lot of browser tabs open or are running memory intensive software, you would probably not see much difference between 8GB and 16GB of RAM.
I've used just about every antivirus there is and there are very few that never slow down my computer. Most of them cause noticeable slowdowns at times and some make my computer run much slower all the time. I'm sure the CPU is a big factor. My main computer only has a 2nd gen i5. It is more than fast enough for what I use my computer for, but, not doubt a faster CPU would help with AV performance.
Twenty years ago, I didn't notice much difference in performance between different antiviruses, but today I do.
- Dec 23, 2014
- 8,592
The differences can be seen when copying many EXE files. If AV does not use caching (most AV use it) then all files are thoroughly scanned. The more files, the greater the difference.
- Feb 3, 2015
- 90
Just asking, is it tencent safe? i mean, with the recent of huawei p30 collecting data and sent directly to ip related to chinese government, huawei and tencent is different company, but again the both from mainland china right? correct me if im wrong
Hi what are the settings av-comp used to get the program to have low performance/ I don't see that on my machine ..lol
- Mar 29, 2018
- 7,698
- Aug 4, 2016
- 1,465
False information.
As a solely maintainer for this project, please accept my deepest apologies for mistakes which cause misunderstadning for Huawei brand and customers. The fact that Huawei P30 Pro initated connections to beian.gov.cn is not true.
pe3zx/huawei-block-list
Captured DNS requests from Huawei P30 Pro to a block list - pe3zx/huawei-block-listgithub.com
Top comment via -https://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/bg834t/new_huawei_p30_pro_found_to_be_querying_servers/
o/t.
- Apr 28, 2015
- 8,948
I think the last version is Panda Dome 18.07.03, so that version 17 seems very obsolete...
- Oct 31, 2014
- 1,712
Panda Dome Free 18 - December 2018 Report
Panda Dome Free 18 + NVT SYSHARDENED (Default) - December 2018 Report Due to the small number of samples used in this tests, you should take results with a grain of salt. We encourage you to compare these results with others and take informed decisions on what security products to use. *...
malwaretips.com
- Mar 28, 2019
- 569
Kaspersky becomes lighter when file heuristics are in default (light mode).
Every time I tried to change to medium, I noticed the computer a little slower.
Every time I tried to change to medium, I noticed the computer a little slower.
More threads makes difference.
That test was done on Kasperky IS, the performance hit is unrelated to heuristics and the normal AV suite performs near ESET (on default settings).
Last edited:
Similar threads
