Forums
New posts
Search forums
News
Security News
Technology News
Giveaways
Giveaways, Promotions and Contests
Discounts & Deals
Reviews
Users Reviews
Video Reviews
Support
Windows Malware Removal Help & Support
Mac Malware Removal Help & Support
Mobile Malware Removal Help & Support
Blog
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Reply to thread
Menu
Install the app
Install
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
Security
Security Statistics and Reports
AV-Comparatives Real World Protection Test - Feburary - May 2019
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Andy Ful" data-source="post: 820606" data-attributes="member: 32260"><p>BASF is not reputation-based protection. I can see this, for example, when running freshly compiled executables. Every such executable uploaded to GitHub and downloaded to disk triggers BASF but the executable is allowed, anyway (I do not compile malware). If I try to execute it, then I can always see the SmartScreen alert.</p><p>Sporadically, my files are detected by BASF as trojan, so I have to submit my executables for whitelisting, before they will be published.</p><p>BASF is based on AI in the cloud like Kaspersky Secure Network feature. BASF uses many factors in the analysis (deep learning), also the file prevalence.</p><p>WD false positives can be visible only with <span style="color: rgb(184, 49, 47)"><strong>low & very low </strong></span>prevalence samples. The average user will not see a significant difference between all AVs, because she/he can feel only false positives from the High or Medium category.</p><p>[ATTACH=full]215221[/ATTACH]</p><p>The false positives should be read as follows:</p><p>McAfee = 3317, Symantec = 1389, Microsoft 840</p><p>So, Microsoft is third not first in the false positives list.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Andy Ful, post: 820606, member: 32260"] BASF is not reputation-based protection. I can see this, for example, when running freshly compiled executables. Every such executable uploaded to GitHub and downloaded to disk triggers BASF but the executable is allowed, anyway (I do not compile malware). If I try to execute it, then I can always see the SmartScreen alert. Sporadically, my files are detected by BASF as trojan, so I have to submit my executables for whitelisting, before they will be published. BASF is based on AI in the cloud like Kaspersky Secure Network feature. BASF uses many factors in the analysis (deep learning), also the file prevalence. WD false positives can be visible only with [COLOR=rgb(184, 49, 47)][B]low & very low [/B][/COLOR]prevalence samples. The average user will not see a significant difference between all AVs, because she/he can feel only false positives from the High or Medium category. [ATTACH type="full" alt="215221"]215221[/ATTACH] The false positives should be read as follows: McAfee = 3317, Symantec = 1389, Microsoft 840 So, Microsoft is third not first in the false positives list. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Top