[AV-TEST] Windows 10, Home User, October 2017

In2an3_PpG

In2an3_PpG

Level 18
Thread author
Verified
Top Poster
Content Creator
Well-known
Nov 15, 2016
867
11,962
1,679
United States
upload_2017-11-29_8-34-26.png
 
  • Like
Reactions: Malware Person, Der.Reisende, Sunshine-boy and 21 others
2 surprises for me:

- the result from qihoo with all 3 engines is scary. delayed signatures from avira and bd?

- mcafee with full 6 points for protection...in detail with 100% against 0-day malware :unsure:
how do they do that? their web-protection and behavior analysis is crap in their internet security. Endpoint is another story
 
  • Like
Reactions: ZeroDay, Garzaman, Marko :) and 5 others
  • Like
Reactions: Sunshine-boy, Handsome Recluse, Garzaman and 1 other person
amico81 said:
the result from qihoo with all 3 engines is scary. delayed signatures from avira and bd?
Click to expand...
There's a lot more to Anti-Virus detection than the signatures - whether they are delayed or not for Qihoo according to the contract signed between the vendors is irrelevant, they still won't necessarily score the same. It also depends on how much of the static engine from the other vendors they are using... For example, you can get a license to the Avira or Bitdefender SDK but you don't necessarily have to use all the supported technology with it; they may only use signatures (including generic) and/or additional heuristic modules, machine learning, and so on.

With that being said, both Avira and Bitdefender are likely to have some form of "dynamic" monitoring even if it isn't open to the normal eye. As an example, when you execute a Portable Executable, it probably has a built-in good memory scanner to perform scanning after a packed sample has decrypted itself in memory and so-forth, this would sort of be reasonably expected in 2017 for a security product scoring high with testing companies. I know that Avast and ESET both have good memory scanners.

This is why when you pack a sample which is unpacked manually and it becomes FUD to the on-demand scanner or read/write real-time, it can still be detected upon execution. Take this as a grain of salt though regarding Avira and Bitdefender because this is speculated assumption based on what I think would be reasonable for high scoring products in this day and age and also considering the sorts of engineers at these vendors.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nightwalker, Sunshine-boy, ZeroDay and 12 others
WoooW
McAfee Top on Windows 10
and Ahnlab , Kaspersky , Norton,Avira, Bitdefender

My Favorite Programs
BitDefender and McAfee

ESET Not TOP in performence !!!!!!!!
There is some doubts
 
  • Like
Reactions: Vasudev, In2an3_PpG and AtlBo
Interesting... What do you think? I doubt they'd have left because of a bad score in testing. Maybe they don't agree with the testing methodology, have a problem with a competitor or something like this?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Vasudev, Garzaman and In2an3_PpG
Back in 2012, they left and was asked why on their forum. At that time it was said that they never asked to join. They also said sometimes competitors will pay for their testing to try show their product is better. I can't remember what happened this time.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ZeroDay, Vasudev, Garzaman and 1 other person
Opcode said:
Interesting... What do you think? I doubt they'd have left because of a bad score in testing. Maybe they don't agree with the testing methodology, have a problem with a competitor or something like this?
Click to expand...

Money. My personal opinion is that it comes down to money.

McAfee for example. Now I'm not hating on them but they most likely paid big to get 100% protection. All of us here can probably agree that the home version of McAfee is not worth that grade.

Emsisoft in my opinion should not have to pay anyone for testing because frankly there are so many tests done on YouTube and forums alike.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Vasudev and Garzaman
You must log in or register to reply here.

You may also like...