Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Andy Ful" data-source="post: 837948" data-attributes="member: 32260">The WD offline/online detection (without BAFS and without proactive features, default settings applied) was tested in AV-Comparatives Malware Protection tests. The test-set used contained 10970 recent/prevalent samples from the last few weeks. So, this test was very different from Zero-Day Protection tests on Malware Hub (not comparable). The results here, are from the latest test:[URL unfurl=&quot;true&quot;]https://www.av-comparatives.org/tests/malware-protection-test-march-2019/[/URL]WD Offline detection rate: 68.5%WD Online detection rate: 88.3%The results of detection based on signatures are significantly lower as compared to other AVs. The above results are related to on-access (on-demand) scans without executing the samples. Samples were scanned from USB and network drives (no BAFS).The comparison with other AVs:[ATTACH=full]226733[/ATTACH]When the samples were executed while online (no BAFS but triggered proactive features), then the result was:WD Online Protection rate: 99.98% which was similar to other AVs.Edit.I would not take seriously the small differences among AVs in Online Protection Rate column. One could probably get the opposite scoring when choosing another pule containing 10970 samples from millions of in-the-wild samples.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Andy Ful, post: 837948, member: 32260"] The WD offline/online detection (without BAFS and without proactive features, default settings applied) was tested in AV-Comparatives Malware Protection tests. The test-set used contained 10970 recent/prevalent samples from the last few weeks. So, this test was very different from Zero-Day Protection tests on Malware Hub (not comparable). The results here, are from the latest test: [URL unfurl="true"]https://www.av-comparatives.org/tests/malware-protection-test-march-2019/[/URL] [B][COLOR=rgb(0, 168, 133)]WD Offline detection rate: 68.5% WD Online detection rate: 88.3%[/COLOR][/B] The results of detection based on signatures are significantly lower as compared to other AVs. The above results are related to on-access (on-demand) scans without executing the samples. Samples were scanned from USB and network drives (no BAFS). The comparison with other AVs: [ATTACH type="full" alt="MalwareTesst2019.png"]226733[/ATTACH] When the samples were executed while online (no BAFS but triggered proactive features), then the result was: [B][COLOR=rgb(41, 105, 176)]WD Online Protection rate: 99.98%[/COLOR][/B] which was similar to other AVs. Edit. I would not take seriously the small differences among AVs in Online Protection Rate column. One could probably get the opposite scoring when choosing another pule containing 10970 samples from millions of in-the-wild samples. [/QUOTE]

Verification