Emsisoft products proven 100% effective in AVLab study

[spaceoctopus]

Both Emsisoft Internet Security and Emsisoft Anti-Malware Version 12 are fresh off the press and the reviews are already rolling in. We are proud to receive the Best+++ 100% effectiveness rating in AVLab Poland’s most recent test for both products in their respective categories for home users and for small and medium businesses.

The objective of this test was to indicate the best solution for the real-time protection against crypto-ransomware. Note: To maintain equal conditions for the test, AVLab decided to use the default settings. Though some of the tested security suites have protection against ransomware specifically, developers decided to disable by default this specific functionality and test each product based on it’s default settings.

For the test, AVLab used “28 malicious software files of crypto-ransomware. Among others there were: Cerber, CryptXXX, DetoxCrypto, Hitler Ransomware, HolyCrypt, Locky, Numecod, Petya, Jigsaw, Vipasana, Stampado and many others. The study included the total amount of 28 samples collected in a collaboration with independent researchers.”

...

(Full article and PDF on their page)

 

[novocaine]

 

[frogboy]

I am using EIS 12 right now and it is good, but to just take this straight from the developers site and say it gets 100% is not overly convincing to me. They would make a post where their product fails would they.

 

[tim one]

I have tested EAM 12 and I can say excellent proactive behavioral files check, but some lack about the signatures despite heavy and frequent updates.

 

[Azure]

I have tested EAM 12 and I can say excellent proactive behavioral files check, but some lack about the signatures despite heavy and frequent updates.

Wouldn't that be an issue with Bitdefender?

 

[tim one]

Wouldn't that be an issue with Bitdefender?

I can just say that some of the malware/ransomware tested by me have been intercepted at the time of execution, and this means that the detection is behavioral type.
Sure BD signatures have also detected malware in static way but not 100% of my samples.

 

[askmark]

To put this post into perspective these home products also received the same rating as them ...

Arcabit Internet Security
Comodo Cloud Antivirus
Foltyn SecurityShield
F-Secure SAFE
G DATA Internet Security
Kaspersky Internet Security 2017
Qihoo 360 Total Security
SecureAPlus Premium
Trend Micro Internet Security 2017
Voodoo Shield Pro
Zemana Antimalware Premium
ZoneAlarm Internet Security Suite

 

[cruelsister]

For any interested, I'll be doing a ransomware test this weekend on one of the above 100% products to see if such a rating can be confirmed.

 

[Evjl's Rain]

For any interested, I'll be doing a ransomware test this weekend on one of the above 100% products to see if such a rating can be confirmed.

just a little info, zemana didn't get the 100% rating according to the pdf file. It missed one sample but still got the 100% rating. not sure if it's a mistake from a typo of the table or misinterpretation of the result
looking forward to your test

 

[tim one]

If we consider that they have tested 28 ransomware, and then 28/X where X corresponds to much more ransomware's variants, free in the wild, then the result of the test is related to the individuality of the tested sample.
If I had tested other different 28 ransomware and its variants, perhaps the results would be different.
This is to say that a test to ensure that it is statistically valid, it must be made with a very high number of sample.
We do not forget that a simple NOP cycle, for example, in a malware code variant can make the difference between detected and undetected.

 

[mamamia]

For any interested, I'll be doing a ransomware test this weekend on one of the above 100% products to see if such a rating can be confirmed.

I will be mindful to Kaspersky or Qihoo test.