Cyren.com Test - THIS Looks Impressive.

[Rod McCarthy]

Another useless and fail test...

Can you give evidence for accusation? Its a free test, offered by a company who AV Comparatives has on their approved vendor list....

Let be honest... you don't have to waste time doing this test

How so...Explain.

 

[Rod McCarthy]

Looks like someone deleted one of my replies....That's weird.

Think I'll test Webroot next.

 

[Logethica]

What do you think they are testing ,Rod?...and How do you think that they are testing it?

They are testing naivety and gathering data on it for marketing purposes.. (& also a little tracking and email info)
How many people will fall for the test?
How many will allow themselves to be tracked?
How many will give out an email address?

I'm surprised that they are not selling left-handed screwdrivers and tins of tartan-paint as well.

 

[Rod McCarthy]

What do you think they are testing ,Rod?...and How do you think that they are testing it?

They are testing naivety and gathering data on it for marketing purposes.. (& also a little tracking and email info)
How many people will fall for the test?
How many will allow themselves to be tracked?
How many will give out an email address?

I'm surprised that they are not selling left-handed screwdrivers and tins of tartan-paint as well.

Tracking maybe, I don't know, certainly no different than Avast right.

They probably want you to buy their AV product just like Kaspersky, who allows and welcomes people to test their product...

It's not honest to imply they want you email address. The test is free.

Man you guys seem kind of angry, as if this company is putting your uncle out of business or something....

Nothing personal here it's all in fun...

I am not sure what if anything caused you to decide to drag out the crucifix, and garlic on this simple company offering a free scan to test your AV product???

 

[Rod McCarthy]

Here is the test results for Microsoft Defender:

5 vulnerabilities found
fail Common Virus
fail Zipped Virus
fail Botnet
fail Phishing
fail Anonymizing

 

[Rod McCarthy]

SO far the winner is Kaspersky.

 

[Deleted member 178]

Can you give evidence for accusation? Its a free test, offered by a company who AV Comparatives has on their approved vendor list....
How so...Explain.

because:

1- AV-C is a fail test lab like all others...
2- because if you don't have an AV you fail, which is totally demonstrative of this idiot test; i have WD and ran it on Edge. They use EICAR to test it , which is surely whitelisted by 99% of the AVs. and of course i failed.
3- it said Edge blocked the zip file, IDM was trying downloading it loooool
4- it said am potentially victim to botnet; i guess they even know how it works... a botnet needs to plant a RAT in my system. Smartscreen will surely alert me right away; i dont even talk about my security apps...

Common pure BS, not surprised that AV-C is partner with this...

 

[CMLew]

Another Enigma alike?

Did some background checks in Google. Nothing special. The only thing stands out to me probably is the F-Prot. Other than that never heard of.

 

[Rod McCarthy]

Last test is Webroot, now since you guys don't seem to care for webroot this should come as good news... They failed. ONLY ONE AV made 3 out of 5, and that was Kaspersky. Below are results for Webroot:

5 vulnerabilities found
fail Common Virus
fail Zipped Virus
fail Botnet
fail Phishing
fail Anonymizing

 

[Rod McCarthy]

Added Company info in 1st post, they have been involved in security since 1988

 

[Rod McCarthy]

So this company is really someone you all know....It's F-Prot as described by CMLew... I found some interesting comments about this antivirus, and the price is incredible.

Comments/Reviews (From People Who Use it):

F-PROT Antivirus for Windows 6.0.9.6

Pros

Although it is using 101 mB of RAM as I write memory usage is not a good indicator of system overhead. My subjective impression is that it is light on system resources and is comparable to the NOD32 3 series in that respect. I have installed it on a 12 year old laptop with a Pentium 4 CPU and I have not noticed a deleterious effect on system performance. Only during definitions updates does CPU usage reach 100%, but that lasts for a few seconds only and does not disrupt my work appreciably. According to www.av-comparatives.org it provides a file detection rate 99.8% and is only rivaled in this respect by Kapersky and AVIRA. False positive performance is not so impressive because AV Comparatives gives it a score of 19 out of 100. The GUI is simple and unpretentious and provides all the options one takes for granted in AV products - exclusions, scheduling, password protection, etc. The £17 yearly subscription for the Home Edition used on 5 PCs is excellent value for money.

 

[hjlbx]

Looks like a browser security test.

Without any technical infos it is difficult to determine what is actually being assessed and how...

 

[_CyberGhosT_]

I don't trust this..
How would a site that doesn't use https be trustworthy in testing MY security?
...and it wants me to turn off my adblocker...and will "help" me by taking my email address to send me a "report".
No Chance!!

In the same boat as you, here let me help you row brother,
Do we all remember F-Prot, ? I do and there's a reason they are doing things on this scale now.
They weren't impressive then and for sure not now, so after failing most of the top AV's what do they suggest as a security solution ?
I trust this test on the same level I trust PC Mag reviews