App Review G DATA Total Security 2022

[omidomi]

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:

https://avlab.pl/PDF_avlab/AVLab-Test-of-software-for-online-banking-protection.pdf

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

https://avlab.pl/PDF_avlab/Malware_Fileless_Protection_Test_EN.pdf

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]

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:

https://avlab.pl/PDF_avlab/AVLab-Test-of-software-for-online-banking-protection.pdf

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

https://avlab.pl/PDF_avlab/Malware_Fileless_Protection_Test_EN.pdf

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 *

 

[Kongo]

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.

 

[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]

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:

https://avlab.pl/PDF_avlab/AVLab-Test-of-software-for-online-banking-protection.pdf

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

https://avlab.pl/PDF_avlab/Malware_Fileless_Protection_Test_EN.pdf

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

 

[Anthony Qian]

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?

Spoiler

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.

 

[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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[Adrian Ścibor]

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

Overview Of Techniques And Attacks In Windows 11 » AVLab Cybersecurity Foundation

Question - What does the name of the "Advanced In-The-Wild Malware Test" mean?

avlab.pl

 

[M4RT1NE2]

MKS_VIR Internet Security very good test result

 

[L0ckJaw]

MKS_VIR Internet Security very good test result

Pls start a new topic and don’t use this one to promote other av

 

[harlan4096]

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:

Malware Hub Report - GDATA InterNet Security - October 2020 Report

GDATA InterNet Security - October 2020 Report Due to the small number of samples used in this tests, you should take results with a grain of salt. We encourage you to compare these results with others and take informed decisions on what security products to use. __ C: Clean / P: Protected / P...

malwaretips.com

 

[L0ckJaw]

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:

Malware Hub Report - GDATA InterNet Security - October 2020 Report

GDATA InterNet Security - October 2020 Report Due to the small number of samples used in this tests, you should take results with a grain of salt. We encourage you to compare these results with others and take informed decisions on what security products to use. __ C: Clean / P: Protected / P...

malwaretips.com

Test from 2020

 

[Kongo]

Test from 2020

His intention was to show the methodology of the Malware Hub tests to @lothar91 and not to bash your beloved G-Data

 

[L0ckJaw]

His intention was to show the methodology of the Malware Hub tests to @lothar91 and not to bash your beloved G-Data

I know wasThinking maybe time for updated test

 

[Shadowra]

I scheduled a test of Gdata for Thursday, it will arrive the same day or Friday morning

 

[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:

Overview Of Techniques And Attacks In Windows 11 » AVLab Cybersecurity Foundation

Question - What does the name of the "Advanced In-The-Wild Malware Test" mean?

avlab.pl

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

 

[BigWrench]

His intention was to show the methodology of the Malware Hub tests to @lothar91 and not to bash your beloved G-Data

EXACTLY. For goodness sake…..Let it go!!!!


Peace to all