Emsisoft Anti-Malware 11.0 Review & Rating | PCMag.com

[Petrovic]

A Good Choice
Emsisoft Anti-Malware 11.0 gets good ratings from the independent labs that test it, and it did quite well in our hands-on malware blocking and malicious URL tests. It's highly configurable, so you can make it work just the way you want. However, its antiphishing abilities could use tuning, and in our testing its behavior alert system flagged only valid programs, no malware. It's a good choice, but not an Editors' Choice.

Full Article

 

[Mihir :-)]

Emsisoft improved alot.In such quick time it achieve high success.

 

[Noxx]

Decent review, and I agree that Emsisoft's behavior alert system is weak, lots of false positives. They definitely have some of the best signatures, though.

 

[DJ Panda]

Heard good reviews of EAM from people at MalwareTips. Better than PCMag by far.

 

[Mihir :-)]

They definitely have some of the best signatures, though.

Yes.Because of Dual engine "Bitdefender" and their own.

 

[Noxx]

Yes.Because of Dual engine "Bitdefender" and their own.

It's interesting because I've always had trouble with BitDefender's security suite, but their signatures are lovely.

 

[Solarquest]

They use Bitdefender's signatures and their own.
According to Emsi (Emsi's blog) 2/3 of the new malware is PUP, 2/3 of it is detected by Emsi's signature.....

 

[hjlbx]

Rubenking highly favors fully automated solutions - like Bitdefender, Kaspersky and Webroot - that require as little user intervention as possible. Rebenking tests software from the perspective of an absolute novice\beginner.

Emsisoft Behavior Blocker is essentially a HIPS - so the user is going to need to interact with it at some point.

Anti-phishing is not a priority for Emsisoft. Fabian Wosar has stated as much openly on the Emsisoft Support Forum.

Rubenking doesn't give enough details about the dropped files on the system, but I would bet that they are inert. If they were executed, then EAM\EIS would detect them at some point - either by signature or Behavior Blocker.

I can throw malicious scripts at both Bitdefender and Webroot that would smash Rubenking's tests of those suites - and there is no way he would make either one an Editor's Choice if he were absolutely honest about it, whereas EAM\EIS Behavior Blocker command line parsing will detect them.

So how you like them apples ?

Any user can learn how EAM\EIS works within a short period of time; they will be able to figure out "false" positives relatively quickly.

In my experience, EAM\EIS are very good general protection.

 

[Noxx]

Very interesting points, hjlbx, it makes me reconsider my thoughts of the review. I definitely get that impression as well about the "automated" solutions. Since I've switched to programs that grant me more control, I've felt much more secure. Also, I made the same observation regarding the anti-phishing/fraud section of the review. In reality, I don't see any need for such a feature so long you use common sense. After all, your data doesn't just find itself typed into a fake paypal website. EMSISOFT should have been at least 4.5 stars.

Edit: Also, Rubenking cites VB100's tests showing TrustPort beating Emsisoft in malware sample tests. No offense to TrustPort, but I've seen EMSISOFT smash TrustPort in every test in the Malwarehub.

 

[hjlbx]

Very interesting points, hjlbx, it makes me reconsider my thoughts of the review. I definitely get that impression as well about the "automated" solutions. Since I've switched to programs that grant me more control, I've felt much more secure. Also, I made the same observation regarding the anti-phishing/fraud section of the review. In reality, I don't see any need for such a feature so long you use common sense. After all, your data doesn't just find itself typed into a fake paypal website. EMSISOFT should have been at least 4.5 stars.

If you get "false" Behavior Blocker alerts from legitimate applications - most of the time it is because a file has been modified via updates - or you just installed a program. Within the context of what is being done on system at the time, most security conscious users will know whether or not something is fishy.

I admit, a novice\beginner or someone who has no inclination to investigate further won't know what to do - and will be much more apt to make a mistake.

I don't have a problem with Rubenking's 4 star rating. What I have a problem with is his incomplete testing and not providing all infos. He does these tests and sometimes doesn't even know how the soft works. An obvious example is his test report of SpyShelter.

Also, Rubenking never does any advanced testing of individual features - and that is where the real problems start = it exposes bugs, crashes, freezes, other problems. If he does come across any such problems - I have never seen him report it - not even once.

EAM\EIS is quite stable, reliable and relatively unproblematic for most users from W10 to W7. If there is a problem, Emsisoft is quite forthright about letting users know. And Emsi fixes their problems in a relatively short period of time. The comparison is made against all other security soft vendors.

An intermediate or advanced user is likely to never get infected or suffer data loss while using EAM\EIS - that assumes that the user is not a high-risk user.

 

[Noxx]

If you get "false" Behavior Blocker alerts from legitimate applications - most of the time it is because a file has been modified via updates - or you just installed a program. Within the context of what is being done on system at the time, most security conscious users will know whether or not something is fishy.

I admit, a novice\beginner or someone who has no inclination to investigate further won't know what to do - and will be much more apt to make a mistake.

I don't have a problem with Rubenking's 4 star rating. What I have a problem with is his incomplete testing and not providing all infos. He does these tests and sometimes doesn't even know how the soft works. An obvious example is his test report of SpyShelter.

An intermediate or advanced user is likely to never get infected or suffer data loss while using EAM\EIS.

But you don't think the 4-star rating was exactly because EMSISOFT requires users to be a little more in control? I don't personally read PC Mag, let alone Rubenking's reviews very often, so I'm not sure what their expectations are for a good AV. I will however say that if McAfee (another one of these automated AV's) can get 4.5 stars, then I am dumbfounded by how EMSISOFT managed to only get 4.

 

[hjlbx]

But you don't think the 4-star rating was exactly because EMSISOFT requires users to be a little more in control? I don't personally read PC Mag, let alone Rubenking's reviews very often, so I'm not sure what their expectations are for a good AV. I will however say that if McAfee (another one of these automated AV's) can get 4.5 stars, then I am dumbfounded by how EMSISOFT managed to only get 4.

The expectation is that a security soft will protect the system 100 % out-of-the-box for an absolute novice\beginner = a 101 year-old using a computer for the very first time.

Rubenking penalizes for "false" positives and any required user-interaction.

 

[Noxx]

I don't like false positives, but I feel much better knowing my program is actively investigating services/programs running on my computer. I feel like if my AV isn't talking to me, then I would question whether or not it's actually protecting me. I would still like EMSISOFT to be a little more vocal (not presently using it, by the way), but the most important thing is that it strikes when it truly counts.

 

[hjlbx]

I don't like false positives, but I feel much better knowing my program is actively investigating services/programs running on my computer. I feel like if my AV isn't talking to me, then I would question whether or not it's actually protecting me. I would still like EMSISOFT to be a little more vocal (not presently using it, by the way), but the most important thing is that it strikes when it truly counts.

There will be few, if any, false positives from the most common programs used on systems.

Safe, but uncommonly used programs - like utilities and less popular, will generate Behavior Blocker alerts sooner or later. Any user that pays attention will realize what is happening on the system in such cases.

 

[jamescv7]

Emsisoft protection is indeed strong, the BB concepts tends to mix up in order that the user aware for those possible changes, especially that in reality you cannot filter between behavior which similar on good and bad.

 

[_CyberGhosT_]

EmsiSoft is indeed strong protection, advanced users know of EmsiSoft's reputation.
EmsiSoft rose quick and has lived up to its ever growing reputation.
Novice users that are not aware of Rubenkings testing methods (or lack thereof) may be swayed by the results.
Thats where the damage is done, with misleading or incomplete info & stats.
Rubenking should know better, hjlbx is right and makes some very good points.
Great share Petrovic.
PeAcE

 

[Deleted member 178]

Emsisoft is well known to be a solid suite integrating modern prevention techniques but without fancy bloat features. i beta-tested it for years before stopping using any kind of AV. So i know how serious this company is. If i ever have to use an AV suite , Emsisoft will be in the top 3.

 

[Solarquest]

I just managed to read the full test...what's strange is that on one side he states that he didn't see malware blocked by the behavior blocker, on the other that after a 80% detection on access, other 17% (total 97%) were detected during install...how should Emsi have detected them if not by BB?
Disturbing is the fact that "some of the malware managed to plant executable files on the test system despite Emsisoft's blocking."....but how many (1% of the total, 0,01 or how many in %)? PUPs or dangerous malware?...did he run these? what happened? Were they active in memory, autorun keys added?....many informations are missing...

 

[Deleted member 2913]

If you read few of his tests you will think that either he dont know about the products well or he simply does a quick go through of the products & casually tests them. I never liked his tests. And his overall rating of products also take into consideration the features of the products like backup, password manager, cleaner, etc...

 

[_CyberGhosT_]

I'm not hating but i don't go to PCMag for software ratings them or Top10 Reviews.
I do read some of their news articles from time to time, but there are far more accurate ratings available online
without having to rely on either of those two. And that's just "my" opinion others may like them and swear by their ratings.
"missing or incomplete information equils unreliable results we learn that early on in High School"
PeAcE