Status
Not open for further replies.

Tony Cole

Level 27
I would have kept Bitdefender 2016, but the custom settings I changed to wouldn't save. Avira, I never knew it had such high detection. Still the same argument, I would rather have prevention over cure - yes, cure when needed, but not the default action.
 

jamescv7

Level 61
Trusted
Verified
For some reason, F-secure does very terrible to handle the False Positives which happens in such few consecutives of real world protection test. Even though it handles Bitdefender engine which should balance the possible erroneous rates.
 

gricardo21

Level 19
Verified
I would have kept Bitdefender 2016, but the custom settings I changed to wouldn't save. Avira, I never knew it had such high detection. Still the same argument, I would rather have prevention over cure - yes, cure when needed, but not the default action.
Avira is a monster dinosaur (speaking in good terms) when it comes to detections, almost always gets a good detection ratio from labs... howevers is very weak with unknown malware they have improved their cloud but still lacks of zero days protection
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tony Cole

SloppyMcFloppy

New Member
Avira is a monster dinosaur (speaking in good terms) when it comes to detections, almost always gets a good detection ratio from labs... howevers is very weak with unknown malware they have improved their cloud but still lacks of zero days protection
I will purchase and use their product if they add zero days protection and redesign the GUI. Other than that, wow 1'm astonish about 1 false positive and 100% detection rate. By the way, how Bitdefender > F - Secure > Emsisoft?!.
 

Kantry123

Level 7
Verified
I will purchase and use their product if they add zero days protection and redesign the GUI. Other than that, wow 1'm astonish about 1 false positive and 100% detection rate. By the way, how Bitdefender > F - Secure > Emsisoft?!.
before u purchase u can also grab beta key from their beta center
that should help
u
regards
 

gricardo21

Level 19
Verified
I will purchase and use their product if they add zero days protection and redesign the GUI. Other than that, wow 1'm astonish about 1 false positive and 100% detection rate. By the way, how Bitdefender > F - Secure > Emsisoft?!.
recently tried f-secure and well it is a good program but i dont like the fact that sometimes is unable to delete unactive malware, on scan it takes some extra ram, another point here is that i was able to terminate f-secure process via task manager (of course it bounced back) but after a while i manage to disable complety the suite, dont like this, so i will not recommend it.

Bitdefender focus on automated products whichs means that you will no receive an alert from them, it is good for novice users but for experts is not a good choice, they have decent detections rates and decent BB, recently i tested the BETA for 2016 their firewall looks promising, but i think they need to improve two points: ram usage and response for zero day malware (they take upto 72 hrs or more to add a sample, for me it is too much)... out of ram usage i will use bitdefender as my main AV.

emsisoft well, has a decent detection, they focus on PUP, good zero day protection and they are minimalist, it is true that for experts it lacks some settings, but i think the way it is, is ok... i like the fact that they doesnt take too much time to add a sample, they have strong politics against PUP that is why i use EEK as my default cleaning tool for others pc... i would choose emsisoft over bitdefender since the fact that emsisoft doesnt eat too much ram and they close the holes that bitdefender doesnt cover with their own engine.

Please keep in mind that updates are first distributed to bitdefender users and the to partners, also they dont deploy the engine in the same way, that is why you would never see the same detection rates for others products that use bitdefender engine, there is a case with qihoo whose detections rates are veryyy lower than bitdefender even lower than ad-aware
 
  • Like
Reactions: SloppyMcFloppy

Blackhawk

New Member
Concerning Avira I saw this comment...

"Our APC (Avira Protection Cloud) already offers protection agains zero day malware on a very high level. As long as the cloud functionality is enabled in your product, which it is by default, any file that can harm your PC is checked by the cloud. So even if that file is not yet in our VDF (virus definition files) you are protected."
 
H

hjlbx

Concerning Avira I saw this comment...

"Our APC (Avira Protection Cloud) already offers protection agains zero day malware on a very high level. As long as the cloud functionality is enabled in your product, which it is by default, any file that can harm your PC is checked by the cloud. So even if that file is not yet in our VDF (virus definition files) you are protected."
It just means that the Avira Cloud probably uses heuristics or emulation (Cuckoo Sandbox) to check for malicious types of file actions. Comodo File Lookup Server with integrated CAMAS does essentially the same. Emsisoft Anti-Malware Network performs queries of files for Behavior Blocker triggers.

I could go on with other products. I have found the increased protection to be marginal.

An anti-executable + virtualization combo offers much more substantial zero-day protection.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Like
Reactions: gricardo21
H

hjlbx

The factsheet for the Real-World Protection Test of August is now available! Find out how the products scored in this very demanding and sophisticated test! see report

It's just a detection test performed over an extended period of time...
 

gricardo21

Level 19
Verified
It just means that the Avira Cloud probably checks the file hash. The cloud probably uses heuristics or emulation (Cuckoo Sandbox) to check for malicious types of file actions. Comodo File Lookup Server with integrated CAMAS does essentially the same. Emsisoft Anti-Malware Network performs queries of files for Behavior Blocker triggers.

I could go on with other products. I have found the increased protection to be marginal.

An anti-executable + virtualization combo offers much more substantial zero-day protection.
for me there is no sense to have a cloud, if you dont have a decent BB that will catch any bad behaviour on run and then ask what to do, if the file is unknown then you cant do pretty much nothing with a hash lookup, you will have to upload the file... that is why a cloud assisted BB is better, norton is good as this, qihoo also and many others. Speaking of combos, AVIRA+private firewall or comodo firewall will be enough for me i will have good detection ratio+protection against zero day...
 

Kuttz

Level 12
Verified
Avira these days improved a lot with consistent higher detection rates with lower false positives which is really good.

Avira + Comodo FW is a good combo to use.
Avira + Crystal Security (Second opinion cloud detection) + Windows FW is also a light weight effective solution.
 

Tony Cole

Level 27
I'm going to be honest, I've tried all the AV's for Windows 10 and Comodo (for me) works the best, plus reviews on here show it's true power - just hope I won't be forced to upgrade to version 9 as I would like to wait.

I now take these tests with a grain of salt, before I would see them as gold dust.
 
  • Like
Reactions: XhenEd
Status
Not open for further replies.