User Feedback G DATA Total Security 2022

Software
G DATA Total Security 2022
Installation
5.00 star(s)
Installation Feedback
Simple and straight forward installation. Clear guidance and rules about privacy. Every component you don’t want to have can be unchecked.
Interface (UI)
4.00 star(s)
Interface Feedback
Simple and red. All the options are nicely accessible thru tabs.
Usability
5.00 star(s)
Usability Feedback
Very user friendly, novice users can operate G Data without any issues
Performance and System Impact
5.00 star(s)
Performance and System Impact Feedback
The new 2022 is very light on the system.
I have i3 from 2015 with 10GB ram and no slowdowns or performance issues at all.

It uses about 250-275MB RAM , constantly checking the file system.
Protection
5.00 star(s)
Protection Feedback
It uses the Bitdefender engine and in-house engine and the protection is really good. Every malware sample or phishing website is blocked.

The behavior blocker is one of the best I have ever used.
Real-time file system protection
5.00 star(s)
Internet Surf protection
5.00 star(s)
Proactive Intrusion protection
5.00 star(s)
Network protection
5.00 star(s)
Pros
  1. Lots of great features
  2. Low impact on system resources
  3. Highly configurable
  4. Easy to use
  5. Simple and non-intrusive
  6. Ransomware protection
  7. Strong and reliable protection
  8. Blocks even brand new malware
  9. Consistently high test scores
  10. Accurate and reliable antivirus engine
  11. Effective malicious URL blocking
  12. Virus signatures are updated very often
  13. Excellent scores in independent tests
  14. Great value
  15. Effective malware removal
  16. Well designed, clear interface
  17. Multiple layers of protection
Cons
  1. Advanced users may want more control
Software installed on computer
More than 30 days
Computer specs
HP mini tower
i3 ( 2015 )
Nvidia
10GB RAM
250GB Samsung Evo SSD
Recommended for
  1. All types of users
  2. Inexperienced users
  3. Experienced users
  4. Device is shared by family members
  5. Banking or other financial activity
  6. Gamers
  7. Low specs device
Overall Rating
5.00 star(s)
Disclaimer
  1. Any views or opinions expressed are that of the member giving the information and may be subjective.
    This software may behave differently on your device.

    We encourage you to compare these opinions with others and take informed decisions on what security products to use.
    Before buying a product you should consider factors such as price, ease of use, compatibility, and support. Installing a free trial version allows an antivirus to be tested in everyday use before purchase.

Mahesh Sudula

Level 17
Verified
Top poster
Well-known
Sep 3, 2017
821
If they could change their Engine -A to ESET which is low in fp's , their static detection would be "matured"

Their own Cloud + Close Gap + Cyren cloud based layer ( for faster outbreak detection) anyhow does the major part
 
Last edited:

Faybert

Level 23
Verified
Top poster
Malware Tester
Well-known
Jan 8, 2017
1,298
Same as F-Secure They need to change that Bug Defender Engine with Avira :)
A G Data continues with Bitdefender because it knows it's the best option, they don't need the Avira subscription to become better, the security modules are many and effective, in addition to Bitdefender they have their own engine (ClosedGap), they have the cloud , behavior blocker (one of the best on the market) and the DeepRay protection that when I tested it on the HUB proved to be very strong and active, G Data is a solid company, they don't mess with the team that is winning.

And always in my tests Bitdefender subscriptions were faster than Avira. That is, it makes no sense to leave a company that is one of the best in the world to go to another that has always been in decline and that was bought by another security company not for its potential, but for the number of fixed customers for the brand, Avira has unfortunately become a very bad security product and no light at the end of the tunnel.
 

Anthony Qian

Level 7
Verified
Well-known
Apr 17, 2021
320
Same as F-Secure They need to change that Bug Defender Engine with Avira :)
Avira engine is terrible (bad detection of script malware, inadequate heuristic ability, and heavily rely on the Cloud) and is the main weakness of F-Secure. Avira’s malware analysis team is terrible, too. They even marked two MBR Lockers as “clean” twice!
 

Mahesh Sudula

Level 17
Verified
Top poster
Well-known
Sep 3, 2017
821
Avira engine is terrible ( heavily rely on the Cloud)
Also i suspect their cloud is connected to Metadefender / Virustotal api .Since i have seen a pattern of suspicious .detections from early hour samples i collected were only detected by a handful of enterprise expert cyber companies (3-4) , were also getting blocked by APC upon execution.

Clearly some "api linked hash based scanner" is in use, however AVIRA is nevertheless a good monster signature giant. Their PUP / Joke / Scam tools detection is one of the best i have seen
 

Anthony Qian

Level 7
Verified
Well-known
Apr 17, 2021
320
Also i suspect their cloud is connected to Metadefender / Virustotal api .Since i have seen a pattern of suspicious .detections from early hour samples i collected were only detected by a handful of enterprise expert cyber companies (3-4) , were also getting blocked by APC upon execution.

Clearly some "api linked hash based scanner" is in use, however AVIRA is nevertheless a good monster signature giant. Their PUP / Joke / Scam tools detection is one of the best i have seen
Attack techniques change over time. There are an increasing number of fileless attacks in the wild. If Avira does not update its detection technologies, it will become obsolete.
 
F

ForgottenSeer 94654

G DATA always performs towards the lower end of the scale in lab tests of exploits, fileless, malicious scripts, and banking trojans. It's lab test record does not inspire confidence.
 

Shadowra

Level 20
Verified
Malware Tester
Sep 2, 2021
962
G DATA always performs towards the lower end of the scale in lab tests of exploits, fileless, malicious scripts, and banking trojans. It's lab test record does not inspire confidence.

Completely wrong.
Gdata uses Bitdefender's engine, which is very well known in detection, and their own engine.

Having tested it yesterday in private, it gave me back a healthy machine even though I was not nice to it (RAT, Bot, VBS Script, Excel Exploit etc)
Everything was detected and quarantined.

He also has his BB which is BEAST and DeepRay which are excellent.

Please look at the MalwareTips tests, or test yourself before saying wrong things...
 

L0ckJaw

Level 19
Thread author
Content Creator
Well-known
Feb 17, 2018
907
Completely wrong.
Gdata uses Bitdefender's engine, which is very well known in detection, and their own engine.

Having tested it yesterday in private, it gave me back a healthy machine even though I was not nice to it (RAT, Bot, VBS Script, Excel Exploit etc)
Everything was detected and quarantined.

He also has his BB which is BEAST and DeepRay which are excellent.

Please look at the MalwareTips tests, or test yourself before saying wrong things...
Mind sharing a video if you made one ?
 
F

ForgottenSeer 94654

Completely wrong.
Gdata uses Bitdefender's engine, which is very well known in detection, and their own engine.

Having tested it yesterday in private, it gave me back a healthy machine even though I was not nice to it (RAT, Bot, VBS Script, Excel Exploit etc)
Everything was detected and quarantined.

He also has his BB which is BEAST and DeepRay which are excellent.

Please look at the MalwareTips tests, or test yourself before saying wrong things...
Not wrong at all. Just check out G DATA results at avlab.pl or others. G DATA always performs below average in properly designed and implemented professional antivirus lab tests.

G DATA worse than average for banking protection:


G DATA worse than average (almost the worst) for fileless malware:


MalwareHub is not professional testing. It is testing performed by non-professionals using amateur methodology.

Nobody is talking about signatures here. Detection by signature is a joke. Nobody can take any review seriously that emphasizes detection by signature.
 
Last edited by a moderator: