The specific AV-Comparatives Test is called Real-World Protection Test.The correlation between lab scenario and real-world use is vague, right?
These tests evaluate the suites “real-world” protection capabilities with default settings (incl. on-execution protection features).
It is our aim to do these tests rigorously
https://www.av-comparatives.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/avc_factsheet2017_08.pdfOur Real-World Protection Test is currently the most comprehensive and complex test available, using a large number of test cases.
The results are based on the test set of 389 live test cases (malicious URLs found in the field), consisting of working exploits (i.e. drive-by downloads) and URLs pointing directly to malware. Thus, exactly the same infection vectors are used as a typical user would experience in everyday life. The test-cases used cover a wide range of current malicious sites and provide insights into the protection given by the various products (using all their protection features) while surfing the web.
Well, to be honest, antivirus reviews and comparatives are just a tool, but they're far from being accurate. There was an interesting article something posted here while ago, where it mentioned the thousands of requisites a test should include to even get close to being accurate. That's why we all take these with a grain of salt. Just as a motivation to push users to test and try softwares on their systems and see how it performs. This is the most close to an accurate test you can get, test by yourself. All systems are differentI don't trust synthetic testing for many reasons..
I don't study their test precautions. But from an IT perspective, a company could probably 'game' test results. For example those AV's must be connected on a network and talk out during the test right? What if a company watched for those MAC addresses, IP addresses, CPU ID codes and other things and 'stroked' their product during the test from remote?
Also, working in the real world, at an MSP with 33K endpoints, we know NO protection is REALLY 100%. It's impossible in my opinion and we make sure clients know that we will do our best but cannot ever guarantee 100% protection... Think about this - have you ever installed a so-called 100% product and found a machine infected some time later? I'm sure most of us have, right? I've seen grossly infected Trend, Bit Defender, Kaspersky and especially Norton infections. In fact I have seen Norton machines in the last few weeks infected and completely subverted with File-Less malware and active botnets.
AV tests are like those warranties when you buy stuff that say 'Guaranteed Refund if it fails!'.. Then you read the fine print and find 50 conditions that have to be met that are impossible to meet so the guarantee is really nonsense.
Below the belt tactics by Vipre!!!!
The best test imo.. Take a laptop, fresh install of Windows 10, disable WD and Smartscreen. Drop an AV on it you want to test, then put the laptop on a DMZ port on your firewall/UTM then 'be a douche' with it. After hammering it AND exposing it to the world for a few weeks or so, how does it look? After you are done DBAN the drive and start over.Well, to be honest, antivirus reviews and comparatives are just a tool, but they're far from being accurate. There was an interesting article something posted here while ago, where it mentioned the thousands of requisites a test should include to even get close to being accurate. That's why we all take these with a grain of salt. Just as a motivation to push users to test and try softwares on their systems and see how it performs. This is the most close to an accurate test you can get, test by yourself. All systems are different
I tore up my unused "lifetime" license. Really don't even want to beta test for them anymore.When I first saw that I put Vipre on the my "Will never buy" list...
Absolutely. Pure scare tactics. Unacceptable.Below the belt tactics by Vipre!!!!
Vipre is a joke.. I always laugh when we take over a company from a failed one-man-show IT company and they almost always have the cheap GFI remote management crap running. This kind of nonsense makes me actually want to buy Kaspersky.Below the belt tactics by Vipre!!!!
You're usijng immunet as your primary av or with another av. I'm trying immunet 6 with BD_free on my other Windows 7.ESET is always great with its super low FPs
One day I might give the ESET IS a try
Panda free AV and MS also look good .........but now I have Immunet installed
I ran KIS2017 on one Windows 7 and BDIS 2017 on Windows 8.1. both good both seemed light. Those pc are used differently. BD ran on autopilot. KIS with many tweaks. I thought I could do more with KIS tweaks, and KIS was light and trouble-free for me, & KIS seemed lighter but it was also on stronger hardware. I liked them both, I liked KIS a little better, and don't run either on my primary box.Excellent results this month. I keep seeing BitDefender top of the class, but i would like to hear anybody experience on this suite? Can it beat Kaspersky? Or perform similar?
Please, feel Free to present your *OWN* Testing Methods & ResultsIt's only of interest from past circuses for equitable test methods.
That's as far as I'm taking this, lol.
My posts had to do with wondering whether Microsoft's user-dependent findings were due to the inclusion of SmartScreen. There was nothing there to "criticize" anything. My comments and their emoticons were referring to a different discussion in a different context at a different time. If my posts "confused" anyone, let this post "unconfuse" you. A lot of interest on my part but nothing negative; sorry this was misinterpreted.Please, feel Free to present your *OWN* Testing Methods & Results
since the ones by AV-Comparatives do Not satisfy your Standards.
I'm looking forward to reading your work...
[Criticism without offering a better Alternative is Not constructive at all...]
Any of them has more false positives, than SmartScreen alone, with the similar detection rate. But anyway, they can save the user in the post-exploitation stage. The user has to decide, if the greater post-exploitation security is so important in Windows 10, as to install two additional realtime security solutions.When using Windows Defender I would never use it as a standalone. I usually had Voodooshield and Zemana Premium running with it, to make sure all angles were covered.