- Jul 14, 2015
- 776
When you use Avira free version, then you can use ABS (avira browser safety in your browser) it will block the same malicious links like their webprotection in Pro version.
Av-comparatives Real-World Protection Test March 2016
- Thread starter luoye
- Start date
- Mar 19, 2015
- 217
I went to a customer 2 weeks a go with kaspersky installed. I'll make it short the system was badly infected including fake AV running.Certainly this month Kaspersky fell down in detection, it usually gets the great results in this test, anyway 99.1% is good enough... let's wait the results in next test
Visit MalWare Hub section in this forum, almost everyday We check dynamically unknown samples against some Security products
- Apr 28, 2015
- 8,916
Which version of Kaspersky? KIS/KTS or only KAV?.
No AV detect 100% of course, and You have to count also with standard users decisions in a real scenario ... in general Kaspersky products need to be tweaked a bit to get stronger protection. I don't like the defaults settings of Kaspersky, but it's a matter to deal with a medium/low settings that suit with standard users...
No AV detect 100% of course, and You have to count also with standard users decisions in a real scenario ... in general Kaspersky products need to be tweaked a bit to get stronger protection. I don't like the defaults settings of Kaspersky, but it's a matter to deal with a medium/low settings that suit with standard users...
Avira web guard in pro is nothing but a web shield it blocks files before it gets downloaded using the signature DB not actual a web filter with its blacklist.In avira free it doesnt count that much since its all signatures.According to stefan (avira virus lab head) their cloud is good enough to substitute BB.And I will agree atleast in my testing APC has been a monster.
The ABS is different its one kind of a web filter.
The ABS is different its one kind of a web filter.
- Jan 4, 2016
- 1,022
After some time I realised avira doesn't need any kind of behavioural blocker
- Sep 26, 2014
- 2,973
I can't stop laughing
.99.1% is good enough?
For me 99.1% is a very good performance but just for the rest 0.9% people should
stop being a happy clicker
. Just think for a second before you click
- Mar 15, 2011
- 13,070
Trend Micro, Bitdefender, F-secure and Avira ---> products which isn't surprising already considering that rely very much on signatures except to their backend behavior protection which TM, Bitdefender and F-secure kicks very well.
However those yellow percentage should be counted why? Because AV's are not intended to be automated, users should be notify too that the detection may be false positive so assurance is exist.
However those yellow percentage should be counted why? Because AV's are not intended to be automated, users should be notify too that the detection may be false positive so assurance is exist.
One test, so I wouldn't base my future purchase on that.
However, in the past couple of year's the top ones are: Kasperksy, BitDefender, Avira and F-Secure. These tend to trade places, depending on the test (e.g. protection, detection etc).
However, in the past couple of year's the top ones are: Kasperksy, BitDefender, Avira and F-Secure. These tend to trade places, depending on the test (e.g. protection, detection etc).
- Mar 15, 2011
- 13,070
@TheMalwareMaster : Yes but its hard because they lack a big time plan B mode since if the cloud is not available and signatures may not enforce the latest threats immediately then already compromise.
- Mar 19, 2015
- 217
the fake AV managed to disable kaspersy, it was zero day coz no program detected it. I removed manually other than that there were a lot of crap.
As for the version I dont know
True...even if you have a file that is not identified by APC it doesn't take long until you execute it and APC sends the suspicious stuff to their cloud where it gets analyzed.....its quite impressive as such.
Snip from the latest malware pack and how avira apc stacked up.There are 2-3 files in there which are not real malware but just PUA.I have submitted those to Avira so APC should pick them up in some time.Actually this is the first time APC has missed something in my test.
I have tested Avast as such and stacked it up against avira APC.All their fancy new gimmicks are not even on par with APC.APC isn't just a onlne detection module it seems like a dynamic online signature DB as well alongside with all the dynamic analyzers and stuff.More than that they are consistent with the APC detection quality unlike avast.
Attachments
Last edited:
- Mar 19, 2015
- 217
- Jan 4, 2016
- 1,022
Avira protection cloud might not be able to immedialy identify PUA, because they don't contain any malicious code. Heur APC cloud is their heuristical module. In the malware pack you used for testing there were a few clean files, so don't worry.. https://malwaretips.com/threads/16-04-2016-9.58273/
Last edited:
Any of the reports that Webroot participated in that I saw were not so great. Overall, this chart shows that most companies are continuously improving - which is awesome. ESET still did pretty well. I expected Kaspersky to do a little better - but no one is perfect. I am sure that they are working on it. Still happy with the software(s) I use.
- Jul 22, 2014
- 2,525
I still don't understand why Emsisoft detection is not higher than Bitdefender's.
According to Emsisoft ()March +July 2015) most of the malware infections is caused by Pups and 70+% of PUPs is detected by Emsi's engine/signature.
Emsisoft uses Bitdefender's engine and signatures....
Are the AV test companies not testing (enough) PUPs (so the samples used not representative of the " real malware world"), are PUPs not prevalent as stated, is Emsi's Pup detection not so good or/and Bitdefender's BB is so stellar?
...just a doubt...
According to Emsisoft ()March +July 2015) most of the malware infections is caused by Pups and 70+% of PUPs is detected by Emsi's engine/signature.
Emsisoft uses Bitdefender's engine and signatures....
Are the AV test companies not testing (enough) PUPs (so the samples used not representative of the " real malware world"), are PUPs not prevalent as stated, is Emsi's Pup detection not so good or/and Bitdefender's BB is so stellar?
...just a doubt...
- Jul 22, 2014
- 2,525
Umbra,
Thank you for yor input.
Since Emsi uses Bitdefender's engine and signatures (and heuristic)+Emsi's ones, why isn't Emsi malware detection higher than Bitdefender's(file detection test)?
For the real world test it might be because of Bitdefender's active control, IDS....what do you think?
Thank you for yor input.
Since Emsi uses Bitdefender's engine and signatures (and heuristic)+Emsi's ones, why isn't Emsi malware detection higher than Bitdefender's(file detection test)?
For the real world test it might be because of Bitdefender's active control, IDS....what do you think?
exactly, Emsi share the RT engine & signature but that's it; the rest is dependent of the BB and other proactive feature of each product.
- Oct 30, 2015
- 1,251
It's just like you were given a set of model answer of 1200 objective qn. and you/machine are required to mark the paper. So what are the chances you/machine will miss some? Sometimes it just do. All other times they're good to use.
Similar threads
