- Mar 7, 2020
- 67
- Content source
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mesGQm-ZqCk
Avast 2020 VS Ransomware
- Thread starter dark_wielder
- Start date
It is advised to take all reviews with a grain of salt. In extreme cases some reviews use dramatization for entertainment purposes.
- Oct 31, 2014
- 1,712
Very good job from Avast and without HM. 
Bravo to Avast team !!
Bravo to Avast team !!
- Apr 15, 2020
- 227
And with Hardened Mode enabled it's even better.
Avast best Free AV!
Avast best Free AV!
Avast best Free AV ? kkkkk
Kaspersky and bitdefender did this
Kaspersky and bitdefender did this
- Apr 15, 2020
- 227
But they don't have the Hardened Mode that can do others.
- Sep 10, 2015
- 901
BD Free is meh, BTW KSC Free is a strong fully-featured AV that you can customize according to your needs.
Hardened Mode it is not unbeatable, avast sponsors download sites, and sells your data.
bitdefender has excellent signatures, often at the top of av test, and av comparatives, it is an offense to buy it from avast.
- Sep 10, 2015
- 901
That applies only to their paid suite, the free AV is underperformant, and you can't even do a manual update to check if all components are properly installed, instead you need to use your computer for at least 2 days to ensure that. Kaspersky and Avast offer the same core protection level to their free tier users.
PD: I have a multi-device KIS license through my ISP but I prefer to use Avast
Hardened Mode only covers .exe files,
bitdefender free uses the same behavior module as the paid version, and the same detection mechanism, the paid version has only additional features, the main protection is the same.
and still fails
same level of protection? kkkk, kaspersky in addition to detecting better pups, has much better signatures, and a more accurate behavior module, Avast has security flaws, sells your data, and security is low.
- Apr 15, 2020
- 227
Nobody said it was unbeatable, only that can do more than Kaspersky and Bitdefender free.
I was talking about Free only
- Sep 10, 2015
- 901
HM is not your usual anti-exe that blocks everything unless you explicitly allow it, it works on a whitelist/blacklist approach that gathers data from the cloud to check an exe reputation, prevalency and creation time.
The only AV that blocks all the PUPs is ESET followed by Emsisoft
Who doesn't likes money?
- Apr 15, 2020
- 227
@The Ordynary Do you really think Kaspersky doesn't sell your data as all other AVs... Windows, facebook, google 
I'm sorry if this just ruined or day...
I'm sorry if this just ruined or day...
HM is not your usual anti-exe that blocks everything unless you explicitly allow it, it works on a whitelist/blacklist approach that gathers data from the cloud to check an exe reputation, prevalency and creation time.
The only AV that blocks all the PUPs is ESET followed by Emsisoft
Who doesn't likes money?
and even then it can't be efficient, pups can't block almost anything, kkk, making money selling data is not worthy of an antivirus.
- Sep 10, 2015
- 901
@The Ordynary Do you really think Kaspersky doesn't sell your data as all other AVs... Windows, facebook, google
Most businessmen have a shark mindset
, and that's not bad, after all why would you start a company if it isn't to get rich?I don’t work with conspiracy theories, the only one that has been caught so far was avast, kaspersky has already offered his condition source for analysis after the NSA scandal,@The Ordynary Do you really think Kaspersky doesn't sell your data as all other AVs... Windows, facebook, google
I'm sorry if this just ruined or day...
rich yes, but how?Most businessmen have a shark mindset
- Sep 10, 2015
- 901
This is not a motivational speech from a guy trying to sell his books
- Dec 23, 2014
- 8,158
I wonder how this test can be seriously taken as a base for discussion about the effectiveness of AV anti-ransomware detection???? If one would perform 2 such tests for the same AV on different pule of samples, the result could be 100% and 80%.
So, 80% can be as good as 100%.
If Avast vendor would think such tests as meaningful, then the paid version would not have dedicated anti-ransomware protection.
It is always nice when the AV we like can get a good result. But except for some pedagogical value about how Avast works, such a single test cannot say anything interesting about the effectiveness of the tested product.
So, 80% can be as good as 100%.
If Avast vendor would think such tests as meaningful, then the paid version would not have dedicated anti-ransomware protection.
It is always nice when the AV we like can get a good result. But except for some pedagogical value about how Avast works, such a single test cannot say anything interesting about the effectiveness of the tested product.
Similar threads
