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
Inactive Support Threads
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
General Security Discussions
Best AVs and Worst AVs in Behavioral Health
Message
<blockquote data-quote="IceMan7" data-source="post: 1121438" data-attributes="member: 121355"><p>What don't you understand? If there are guidelines, known as boundary conditions, and the AV knows that its participation will not be bad for it, it participates in such tests. Especially since it pays off. If the AV believes that the results may be compromising for it, it does not participate.</p><p>Once on Avlab in the comments, Adrian wrote that not all AVs take part in every test, because not everyone likes the test method, which may ultimately be the reason for the poor result of their solution. If there is a solution that is still "in its infancy" or is not at a high level and is not at risk of violating sales, it will participate in order to develop the software itself.</p><p></p><p>What kind of AV-Test tests are these, when at least 70% of solutions get 3x6 in the assessment?</p><p></p><p>I haven't been excited about these tests for a long time, because you supposedly have a document on how they test, a described method, and then you haven't seen these tests (a film would be useful at least once) and so on - you don't know what samples they test. Can you vouch that half of these AVs that take part don't know these samples or don't have signatures anymore? They pay for these tests and don't want to come off badly.</p><p></p><p>The tests are as credible as the tests in the German motoring press, where German cars, German tires and everything German always win. Have you ever seen a revolt of Italian and French car brands or a protest of GoodYear, Pirelli, Michelin when Continental always wins?</p><p></p><p>I prefer Shadowra tests or those on YT channels, because the tests are recorded and you can see how a given AV behaves during the test. How it reacts to a threat, what processes fight it or where it gives up.</p><p>And I only trust AVLab from tests on tables.</p><p></p><p>Shadowra tests are not an oracle. Samples are different. One AV will detect all of them and another time it will give up on some.</p><p>It's about seeing how technologies and solutions used in a given AV deal with threats.</p><p></p><p>Behavioral protection, for me, is protection against 0-day samples. Against new ones that AV doesn't know and how it fights them, having its own solutions. And how it ends in the end.</p><p>And that's why I write that when it comes to this, Kaspersky and Bitdefender have been doing the best for years and have not been compromising in such tests. Norton and its clones are worse. And I would bet on Eset faster than on Avast, Avira, Norton. It's just a shame that Fsecure is now Avira <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite111" alt=":(" title="Frown :(" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":(" /></p><p></p><p>This is my opinion. You have a different one. But I respect it.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="IceMan7, post: 1121438, member: 121355"] What don't you understand? If there are guidelines, known as boundary conditions, and the AV knows that its participation will not be bad for it, it participates in such tests. Especially since it pays off. If the AV believes that the results may be compromising for it, it does not participate. Once on Avlab in the comments, Adrian wrote that not all AVs take part in every test, because not everyone likes the test method, which may ultimately be the reason for the poor result of their solution. If there is a solution that is still "in its infancy" or is not at a high level and is not at risk of violating sales, it will participate in order to develop the software itself. What kind of AV-Test tests are these, when at least 70% of solutions get 3x6 in the assessment? I haven't been excited about these tests for a long time, because you supposedly have a document on how they test, a described method, and then you haven't seen these tests (a film would be useful at least once) and so on - you don't know what samples they test. Can you vouch that half of these AVs that take part don't know these samples or don't have signatures anymore? They pay for these tests and don't want to come off badly. The tests are as credible as the tests in the German motoring press, where German cars, German tires and everything German always win. Have you ever seen a revolt of Italian and French car brands or a protest of GoodYear, Pirelli, Michelin when Continental always wins? I prefer Shadowra tests or those on YT channels, because the tests are recorded and you can see how a given AV behaves during the test. How it reacts to a threat, what processes fight it or where it gives up. And I only trust AVLab from tests on tables. Shadowra tests are not an oracle. Samples are different. One AV will detect all of them and another time it will give up on some. It's about seeing how technologies and solutions used in a given AV deal with threats. Behavioral protection, for me, is protection against 0-day samples. Against new ones that AV doesn't know and how it fights them, having its own solutions. And how it ends in the end. And that's why I write that when it comes to this, Kaspersky and Bitdefender have been doing the best for years and have not been compromising in such tests. Norton and its clones are worse. And I would bet on Eset faster than on Avast, Avira, Norton. It's just a shame that Fsecure is now Avira :( This is my opinion. You have a different one. But I respect it. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Top
