App Review G DATA Total Security 2022

It is advised to take all reviews with a grain of salt. In extreme cases some reviews use dramatization for entertainment purposes.
Product name
G DATA Total Security 2022
Installation (rating)
5.00 star(s)
User interface (rating)
4.00 star(s)
Accessibility notes
Simple and red. All the options are nicely accessible thru tabs.
Performance (rating)
5.00 star(s)
Core Protection (rating)
5.00 star(s)
Proactive protection (rating)
5.00 star(s)
Additional Protection notes
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.
Browser protection (rating)
5.00 star(s)
Positives
    • Many features
    • Low impact on system resources
    • Highly configurable
    • Easy to use
    • Simple and non-intrusive
    • Ransomware protection
    • Strong and reliable protection
    • Detects or blocks in the wild malware
    • Consistently high test scores
    • Accurate results and reliable antivirus engine
    • Effective malicious URL blocking
    • Virus signatures are updated daily
    • Excellent scores in independent tests
    • Great value for money
    • Effective malware removal
    • Well designed, clear and easy to use interface
    • Multi-layer protection approach
Negatives
    • Advanced users may want more control
Time spent using product
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. Multi-user devices
  5. Financial banking or trading
  6. High-end or medium spec PCs
  7. Low spec PCs
Overall rating
5.00 star(s)

omidomi

Level 71
Verified
Honorary Member
Top Poster
Malware Hunter
Well-known
Apr 5, 2014
6,001
Please no , Avira in my opinion slow and part of LifeLock which I hate.
Hi
Why you hate LifeLock?
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!
Why terrible?
Wow,can you share you sample that they do't detected ...?
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.
Can you share your professionals 'methodology' with MH admins or us ?
 

Mahesh Sudula

Level 17
Verified
Top Poster
Well-known
Sep 3, 2017
818
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.
The problem with these institutes is they don't run a malicious sample or code in real time to generate similar malicious scenarios then check how in real time the AV's react ?
Reasons were obvious : Either they can't code such malicious code, secondly in wild samples might have been blocked by Web shield / Static signatures. Disabling these and testing only Proactive shields is another matter.

Second catch is now a days most AV vendors made sure their proactive modules are tied to reactive modules (likely) to cover up their weak points when only Proactive shields are enabled to defend such real time hard blooded malicious behaviors (fair enough) ex: Norton -SONAR

So in case if u want a ready made hand coded samples to trigger similar behaviors obviously many Av's wont react since they can't perform all the triggers what an actual malware does real time . For ex: All the above scenario's are purely hips based..so Spy shelter / Comodo (expected) rocked the test, then Dr WEB. Majority of well knwn vendors like BD, G data tanked the test. SIMPLE. they just won' t react.

Ex: It is easy to just code a ransomware to simply encrypt files by any simple form, or make a suspicious sample by yourself (by simple code so simple) that deletes all your files , majority of AV don't react to such simple hand coded scenarios.

It is just my opinion, on these tests overall not just Avlab.pl there are 4/5 other institutes. DENNIS LAB a German based AV testing used to be somewhat ok but it was closed*

Our HUB is where we execute real world sample scenarios (to certain extent) where Av's face real time challenge, just purely based on the samples we get that day. Standard AV's might not win every time, but they definetly give a STRONG fight back . To my knowledge these are the AV's that does exactly that - TOP-> K, BD, G data, Norton
middle rank are Avg/Avast, F secure , Emsisoft.

*Take above opinion with a grain of salt *
 
Last edited:

Kongo

Level 35
Verified
Top Poster
Well-known
Feb 25, 2017
2,490
Nobody is talking about signatures here. Detection by signature is a joke. Nobody can take any review seriously that emphasizes detection by signature.
But the Malware Hub is doing exactly the opposite. They are searching for Zero-Day malware that isn't detected by many engines and run the samples dynamically. So the Hub tests mainly focus on the behavioural components of the product.
 
F

ForgottenSeer 94654

But the Malware Hub is doing exactly the opposite. They are searching for Zero-Day malware that isn't detected by many engines and run the samples dynamically. So the Hub tests mainly focus on the behavioural components of the product.
Nobody was discussing Malware Hub and signatures. The Youtube tester stated that G DATA uses the best signatures - Bitdefender engine - and that everything was detected. They are the one that cited Bitdefender engine usage by G DATA as being the reason it detects everything.

And while focusing on the behavioural components of a product might be the objective, Malware Hub results clearly show the vast majority detections are detected by signature. There is what people want it to be, then there is what it actually is.
 

L0ckJaw

Level 19
Thread author
Verified
Content Creator
Well-known
Feb 17, 2018
870
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.
So nice you trust those so called professionals. I can build a professional looking website in a day and add some “Tests” there and some fancy buttons.

If you think MWT is not reliable, please leave here then and join those paid AV testing websites.

Edit :

You show tests from 2017 ! Do you know what year we live in now ?
How can you rely on the past. Proves you are not a professional as you claim yourself haha
 

Attachments

  • 76D1106A-AEFC-4006-9ED0-894F91865258.jpeg
    76D1106A-AEFC-4006-9ED0-894F91865258.jpeg
    779.8 KB · Views: 164
  • 02C3D29B-37CA-4012-8F5A-21E1F4587904.jpeg
    02C3D29B-37CA-4012-8F5A-21E1F4587904.jpeg
    503 KB · Views: 158
Last edited:

Anthony Qian

Level 9
Verified
Well-known
Apr 17, 2021
448
Hi
Why you hate LifeLock?

Why terrible?
Wow,can you share you sample that they do't detected ...?

Can you share your professionals 'methodology' with MH admins or us ?
Why terrible?
Why Avira's engine is terrible?
1. Take a look at Avira's results on Malware Hub: it failed every test! This clearly shows Avira's very bad protection against script malware.
2. AV-Test shows Avira tends to slow PC down and it did poorly in AV-T's May-Jun/2021 test in terms of Protection.
3. Avira did relatively well in AV-C tests. It is, however, not on the first-teir list.
Why Avira's analysis team is terrible?
Avira-1.jpg
Avira-3.jpg
After initial assessment, they incorrectly marked these two malicious samples as CLEAN. The first one has been detected after I requested that the sample be re-evaluated. The second one is still not detected. At the moment, I can't find the MBR Killer sample that Avira incorrectly classified as clean; perhaps I deleted the result email.
 
F

ForgottenSeer 94654

So nice you trust those so called professionals. I can build a professional looking website in a day and add some “Tests” there and some fancy buttons.
avlab.pl is highly respected. It is one of the very few labs that does the tests correctly.

Edit :

You show tests from 2017 ! Do you know what year we live in now ?
It was reported to G DATA and it never fixed any of its deficiencies. What was true of 2017 is true today.
 

L0ckJaw

Level 19
Thread author
Verified
Content Creator
Well-known
Feb 17, 2018
870
avlab.pl is highly respected. It is one of the very few labs that does the tests correctly.


It was reported to G DATA and it never fixed any of its deficiencies. What was true of 2017 is true today.
Please stop spamming my GData review , you for sure know nothing. I saw you spam a lot of other topics with a lot of rubbish talk too. Please behave.
 

Shadowra

Level 33
Verified
Top Poster
Content Creator
Malware Tester
Well-known
Sep 2, 2021
2,270
pl est très respecté. C'est l'un des rares laboratoires qui fait les tests correctement.
Thank you for me 😉
On a more serious note, I don't understand why you would defund any of the tests in question, except on one lab.

When you choose an Antivirus software, you base it on SEVERAL tests (here, AV Tests, AV Comparative, AV Labs etc).

On the other hand I do not allow you to insult my work and those of other testers! Because yes sorry but it's clearly insulting what you do.....

I will test Gdata in the week. I have another Antivirus before, I think my video will be out at the end of the week.
 

Kongo

Level 35
Verified
Top Poster
Well-known
Feb 25, 2017
2,490
And while focusing on the behavioural components of a product might be the objective, Malware Hub results clearly show the vast majority detections are detected by signature. There is what people want it to be, then there is what it actually is.
Better check out the results of the tests. There is a reason why it’s divided into "static" and "dynamic" results. If the samples are detected in the static scan many testers like @harlan4096 for example do a bonus dynamic test where only the behavioural detection components of the products are enabled.
 

harlan4096

Moderator
Verified
Staff Member
Malware Hunter
Well-known
Apr 28, 2015
8,646
Better check out the results of the tests. There is a reason why it’s divided into "static" and "dynamic" results. If the samples are detected in the static scan many testers like @harlan4096 for example do a bonus dynamic test where only the behavioural detection components of the products are enabled.
I have performed a BB tests (disabling real-time protection) in the past in some of my tests, but only with a few products that allow it.

Unfortunately, it is increasingly difficult to find a product that allows this type of testing, and does not separate the main resident protection from the behaviour blocker module.

These are the results I got in 2020 with GDATA:

 

L0ckJaw

Level 19
Thread author
Verified
Content Creator
Well-known
Feb 17, 2018
870
I have performed a BB tests (disabling real-time protection) in the past in some of my tests, but only with a few products that allow it.

Unfortunately, it is increasingly difficult to find a product that allows this type of testing, and does not separate the main resident protection from the behaviour blocker module.

These are the results I got in 2020 with GDATA:

Test from 2020 🙃
 
F

ForgottenSeer 94654

His intention was to show the methodology of the Malware Hub tests to @lothar91 and not to bash your beloved G-Data 😄
One can look at the report (Hub testing is common knowledge) and understand it. The dynamic tests of G DATA performed by @harlan4096 reveal what the historical record has been for G DATA for a long time - that it fails at a higher frequency than other products, except one - Microsoft Defender.

I know 🙃wasThinking maybe time for updated test 🙃
Unfortunately, it won't make any difference. G DATA consumer is a "sustainment" project. However, you can find any number of Youtuber testers that will state G DATA is the greatest.

Here is a very simple challenge. Any firewall should be able to do it. Attempt to block a single IP address within G DATA. With G DATA you won't be able to because the firewall controls do not function correctly. People have been trying to get that fixed for years, but G DATA is not going to fix it because it is in "sustainment" - which means the corp will expend only effort and expense to maintain the status quo.

@omidomi @L0ckJaw
Take a look at updated serie test for G Data as well, please:

Notice that no one has any replies? G DATA and Microsoft Defender performed the worst.
 

About us

  • MalwareTips is a community-driven platform providing the latest information and resources on malware and cyber threats. Our team of experienced professionals and passionate volunteers work to keep the internet safe and secure. We provide accurate, up-to-date information and strive to build a strong and supportive community dedicated to cybersecurity.

User Menu

Follow us

Follow us on Facebook or Twitter to know first about the latest cybersecurity incidents and malware threats.

Top