App Review Bitdefender vs Kaspersky | Best Free Antivirus?

[Mahesh Sudula]

Content source

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d1ZcNrcXLl0

Both of them fought well
Surprised from KAF after failure in static detection
WINNER : TIE

 

[yitworths]

Another important thing is missed from the test, that is bug... Bitdefender is one of the most buggiest av product I've ever come across... BD does have great sig for sure,but sig alone ain't enough...

 

[harlan4096]

It seems He used KFA2018 (not 2019), also about on demand scan... usually in those huge malware packs there are many corrupted files, PUPs and other types of applications that even won't run... that some avs firms usually flag them as malware (checked many times in VT), I'm sure that if I would send them all to KL VirusDesk, probably a big % would get a clean verdict...

 

[RoboMan]

"Okay so Kaspersky really takes longer because it makes a much more deeper scan" *fails at detecting half of the threats*

Lmao anyways just take this test with a grain of salt. The fact that he disabled real-time protection in order to test other components is just ridiculous. But, well... youtubers

 

[MeltdownEnemy]

Another important thing is missed from the test, that is bug... Bitdefender is one of the most buggiest av product I've ever come across... BD does have great sig for sure,but sig alone ain't enough...

 

[cruelsister]

When I was doing videos I never wanted to comment on those done by others. However I am finally Free At Last.

This video has to be one of the most pathetic that I've viewed:

1). Notice the author did not really have a good deal of knowledge about either K or BD.
2). Notice the comment that the malware used could be between "Zero-Day" and 1 week old? Notice also that assuming there was actually new malware in the packs used they were collected around 11 July and the test was done with updated signatures on 14 July?
3). The author highlighted the JS script file. Anyone notice that not only did it not work, but it was also from 2008? This wasn't ever Zero-Decade.
4). Notice the file sizes? See any duplicates (I bet you can)?
5). Are any of these files actually malware? When a Security video is done. the author MUST be familiar with the malware used in addition to the product tested! This sloppiness shown here just takes my breath away...
6). The author has the God-Dammed Gall to state that he spent a lot of time making the video- I'm not even going to comment further on this.
7). But the saddest thing is that for a newly released video it already has a few thousand view and about 500 likes.

KMN

 

[509322]

When I was doing videos I never wanted to comment on those done by others. However I am finally Free At Last.

This video has to be one of the most pathetic that I've viewed:

1). Notice the author did not really have a good deal of knowledge about either K or BD.
2). Notice the comment that the malware used could be between "Zero-Day" and 1 week old? Notice also that assuming there was actually new malware in the packs used they were collected around 11 July and the test was done with updated signatures on 14 July?
3). The author highlighted the JS script file. Anyone notice that not only did it not work, but it was also from 2008? This wasn't ever Zero-Decade.
4). Notice the file sizes? See any duplicates (I bet you can)?
5). Are any of these files actually malware? When a Security video is done. the author MUST be familiar with the malware used in addition to the product tested! This sloppiness shown here just takes my breath away...
6). The author has the God-Dammed Gall to state that he spent a lot of time making the video- I'm not even going to comment further on this.
7). But the saddest thing is that for a newly released video it already has a few thousand view and about 500 likes.

KMN

People are not going to spend days or weeks figuring out what a file does.

Hell, they can't even identify the malware when they download it because 99 % of the stuff available for download is not clearly or properly identified.

Not to mention a lot of it isn't malware or is just a malfunctioning DUD that sits there and does nothing.

 

[upnorth]

After 6 minutes I closed the video. Not clear about what product version is tested is never a good sign in any socalled review videos. The JS file was apparently good to include, because Java Script is...fine and a fair representation. Seriously? It's a file from 2013. My underwear I personal consider fine and fair but dosen't mean I wear any from 2013.

IMO this should serve as a warning to @Aerdian on how to Not do a review video. It's not the video quality itself or his voice and not even his idea to compare 2 free AV products but include that extrem amount of samples is asking for problems just as @harlan4096 mention and I seen a few of his creations before and I get the feeling it's in general very shallow and basic tests with not much actual content and with that in mind it's IMO not a major surprise that also this video was not any award contender.

The author highlighted the JS script file. Anyone notice that not only did it not work, but it was also from 2008?

@cruelsister where do you see the JS file is from 2008? I maybe should have watched the whole thing.

It seems He used KFA2018 (not 2019)

@harlan4096 I know your knowledge on Kaspersky products are very above normal but where or how did you notice about KFA2018? And 0:32 in the video, why does Kaspersky have a license of 362 days left? I thought it was a Free version.

 

[harlan4096]

@upnorth: in minute 01:02, the 4 main modules still may be tweaked, so it is KFA2018 , this is how looks like KFA2019:

Spoiler

About 362 of license, it's a normal behaviour, after those days the product should auto-renew the free license.

 

[TairikuOkami]

It seems He used KFA2018 (not 2019)

To be fair, 2019 is still beta, you can not even download it, unless you are actually looking for it.

Are any of these files actually malware?

Since BD had detected them, they had to be, since KAV is more aggressive in the grey area.

Notice the comment that the malware used could be between "Zero-Day" and 1 week old?

Zer-Day aside, it is never a good sign, if AV fails to detect malware, which is more than 24-48 hours old.

Seriously? It's a file from 2013.

The funny thing about some AVs, they can detect the latest stuff, but they fail to detect the old malware, which can be still as dangerous as before.

The author has the God-Dammed Gall to state that he spent a lot of time making the video

He is a security enthusiastic (are not we all?!), so he does not have PhD in it and trying to do the best he can. Might not fill someone else's shoes yet.

But the saddest thing is that for a newly released video it already has a few thousand view and about 500 likes.

I gave it Like as well, it was a good test, easy to understand by most, covering the basics (like AV comparatives does), no confusing technicalities.

 

[harlan4096]

Since BD had detected them, they had to be, since KAV is more aggressive in the grey area.

Not necessary... testing at MWHub I've fond many samples detected by BD engine (and others) and I got clean verdict from analyst at KL VirusDesk, so they may be just false positives or very paranoid verdict from BD engine... although I know Kaspersky has sometimes a "very strict/alien criteria/rules" to add malware... for example rarely They add cracks or keys/serial generators unless They can harm the system (or their own product, of course)... but usually You may find a simple serial generator in VT being flagging as malware for many avs firms, including BD engine...

 

[Mahesh Sudula]

Not necessary... testing at MWHub I've fond many samples detected by BD engine (and others) and I got clean verdict from analyst at KL VirusDesk, so they may be just false positives or very paranoid verdict from BD engine... although I know Kaspersky has sometimes a "very strict/alien criteria/rules" to add malware... for example rarely They add cracks or keys/serial generators unless They can harm the system (or their own product, of course)... but usually You may find a simple serial generator in VT being flagging as malware for many avs firms, including BD engine...

Yes i absolutely agree with him..similar analysis from me as well
Though BD has very very good signatures that doesn't mean it is granted a malicious rating
As far as cracks/keygens concerned BD literally whacks all of them with Trojan.GENERICKD detection > follows all his fellow mates
Kaspersky is known for quality malware analysis and Fp's

 

[RoboMan]

I gave it Like as well, it was a good test, easy to understand by most, covering the basics (like AV comparatives does), no confusing technicalities.

I'm gonna have to differ here. That a security test is easy to understand does not mean it's useful. I find it misleading and useless. To start with, he's "giving advice" on which software is better on a wrong criteria, with wrong methods and without knowledge at all. Not to mention the fact that Leo has been around for quite some time doing these kind of tests. I tried to reach him actually lots of times trying to recommend him about several items, like resetting the VM, not to disable important components in order to test others, or how to handle some samples but everytime he either never answers back or he drops some crap about how some "Sophos Engineers" or professional malware analysts congratulated him for the videos lmao.

We need to separate useful tests from easy tests. How to know? Easy. If it's on Youtube it's probably garbage.

 

[Nestor]

To be fair, 2019 is still beta, you can not even download it, unless you are actually looking for it.


Since BD had detected them, they had to be, since KAV is more aggressive in the grey area.


Zer-Day aside, it is never a good sign, if AV fails to detect malware, which is more than 24-48 hours old.


The funny thing about some AVs, they can detect the latest stuff, but they fail to detect the old malware, which can be still as dangerous as before.


He is a security enthusiastic (are not we all?!), so he does not have PhD in it and trying to do the best he can. Might not fill someone else's shoes yet.


I gave it Like as well, it was a good test, easy to understand by most, covering the basics (like AV comparatives does), no confusing technicalities.

Totally agree!

 

[samit]

To be fair, 2019 is still beta, you can not even download it, unless you are actually looking for it.

KFA 2019 is already out of beta but I think it is released only on certain European Union countries.

 

[likeastar20]

You can download KFA 2019 if you choose The European Union instead of Global

 

[StrikeFIN]

BD Free is simple (with no actual setting options), there was annoing bug with telemetry with version 1.0.12.30, "anonymous usage reports" was always on, even you turned it off, was fixed later on update 1.0.12.34, now latest version is 1.0.12.41

IMO KFA 2019 is worse than 2018, mostly because of certain important settings are grayed out now (option to turn off email protection etc), this was actual reason why I did move to BD Free, and recently tested KFA 2019 again but options are still grayed, so I think it's Kaspersky's new policy.

Both offer awesome protection, usually top of their tests.

KFA 2018 would been better than BD Free, but now compared to KFA 2019, I say BD Free is somewhat better, still with it's own flaws of course. There is no such as perfect free AV.

 

[Aerdian]

After 6 minutes I closed the video. Not clear about what product version is tested is never a good sign in any socalled review videos. The JS file was apparently good to include, because Java Script is...fine and a fair representation. Seriously? It's a file from 2013. My underwear I personal consider fine and fair but dosen't mean I wear any from 2013.

IMO this should serve as a warning to @Aerdian on how to Not do a review video. It's not the video quality itself or his voice and not even his idea to compare 2 free AV products but include that extrem amount of samples is asking for problems just as @harlan4096 mention and I seen a few of his creations before and I get the feeling it's in general very shallow and basic tests with not much actual content and with that in mind it's IMO not a major surprise that also this video was not any award contender.

@cruelsister where do you see the JS file is from 2008? I maybe should have watched the whole thing.

@harlan4096 I know your knowledge on Kaspersky products are very above normal but where or how did you notice about KFA2018? And 0:32 in the video, why does Kaspersky have a license of 362 days left? I thought it was a Free version.

Thanks for mentioning me in your reply I am trying to make my reviews better, so this definitely helps!

 

[Ink]

This video has to be one of the most pathetic that I've viewed:
KMN

Finally, something we agree on. Video reviews have a n% of misleading information to the viewer, whether it be an "AV test" or an Unboxing of a smartphone..

 

[harlan4096]

IMO KFA 2019 is worse than 2018, mostly because of certain important settings are grayed out now (option to turn off email protection etc), this was actual reason why I did move to BD Free, and recently tested KFA 2019 again but options are still grayed, so I think it's Kaspersky's new policy.

But KFA2019 has "System Watcher"... probably limited compared to KIS/KTS, which collects info from Application Control and other modules, but there it is... and it can block, for instead, many exploit attacks from .doc .xls documents and others ... check MWHub results...