App Review GData Internet Security 2024

[Shadowra]

Content source

https://odysee.com/@Shadowra:f/Gdata-Internet-Security-2024:1

Gdata is a German company which, over the last few years, has begun to make a name for itself on the antivirus market, becoming increasingly popular.
Still using 2 engines (Bitdefender and its own - CloseGap), the publisher seems to have improved its proactive defenses (which were already very good) to beef them up even further, despite a relatively old interface that's starting to gather dust...
Let's take a look together!



User interface :

The interface is clear, but Gdata has changed the icons.
But the publisher has kept it since... 2014 !
It's starting to look a bit dated. A change would be welcome.
Nevertheless, it has the character of being clear and well configured by default, no doubt for brand regulars.
Gdata has also undergone a facelift. Although it reserves around 700MB of RAM, it will use between 200 and 350MB, which is positive !


Web protection: 10/10

On the Web, Gdata's Web filtering and extension blocks all malicious links.
Nothing to say on that score.


Fake crack : 0,80/1

Gdata correctly blocks malware attempting to install itself, with the exception of .CPL, which will use rundll32.exe
Fortunately, it won't take any action, probably because its C&C server is down.

Malware Pack : Remaining 6 out of 667 threats.

I must admit I'm very surprised by his performance...
Gdata has given us back a completely infection-free machine!
The scripts were detected thanks to its powerful AMSI shield, capable of blocking the connection to download various Payloads.
Only one file was not recognized, which replaced my wallpaper with a photo of a manga (which I replaced with my own), but there was no malicious action.
Completely healthy machine! Congratulations!

Final scan :

GData : 0
NPE : 0
Autoruns : 0 malicious keys
KVRT: 1 (A non-active .CPL file)
Emsisoft : 0
Malwarebytes : 0

Final opinion:

Gdata is a powerful antivirus that can easily compete with the likes of Kaspersky and Bitdefender.
Its protection is very powerful, and its behavioral blocking (BEAST) is very formidable!
It has made up for many of its shortcomings by becoming relatively lightweight.
Gdata is, of course, highly recommendable!

 

[Bot]

Thanks for the comprehensive review! It's great to see that GData Internet Security 2024 is performing well and offering powerful protection. The dated interface could use an update, but it seems the performance and security features more than compensate for this.

 

[Khushal]

Trust in German Technology.
Not too sure if it's lightweight than Kaspersky or Bitdefender though.

 

[Practical Response]

I wont tell all the bitdefender haters that Gdata has its own "in house engine "Closegap" as well as Bitdefenders" , as well as BEAST and deepray for unknowns.

It has always performed well protection wise, a little heavy handed at times in the past, but overall a solid product.

 

[Harputlu]

It was a great program without the problem of slowing down the download speed

 

[CyberDevil]

Interestingly, a new G Data test from the Russian-language portal COMSS was released today, where G Data is one of the few on the same set of malware that couldn't even protect itself. So no test is the truth in the last instance, it happens that a product shows a brilliant result in one test and then completely fails in another.

 

[Khushal]

Interestingly, a new G Data test from the Russian-language portal COMSS was released today, where G Data is one of the few on the same set of malware that couldn't even protect itself. So no test is the truth in the last instance, it happens that a product shows a brilliant result in one test and then completely fails in another.

Yeah J Itech Solutions on YT has pointed out these inconsistencies in his tests as well.

 

[Shadowra]

Interestingly, a new G Data test from the Russian-language portal COMSS was released today, where G Data is one of the few on the same set of malware that couldn't even protect itself. So no test is the truth in the last instance, it happens that a product shows a brilliant result in one test and then completely fails in another.

Comss is a tester I no longer follow at all, as his samples contain many false positives... (and broken samples).

And who's to say it wasn't the antivirus that crashed on his machine? On my vm and on my pc when I was using Gdata, I never had this problem

 

[Practical Response]

Interestingly, a new G Data test from the Russian-language portal COMSS was released today, where G Data is one of the few on the same set of malware that couldn't even protect itself. So no test is the truth in the last instance, it happens that a product shows a brilliant result in one test and then completely fails in another.

Ever notice how all these tests are performed by desktop either manually or by script hammering the product?

I said something nice above because when I state the actual reality it brings out the mt gang up association.

None of these YouTube testers test the product according to design i.e. "Real world testing"

No actual route of infection taking place. Notice the highly tuned web filter in this product.

Want some real reality, it's not really the job of the product to protect users from themselves, it's additional security, that has to be used with habits in order to be effective.

Mic drop!

 

[Khushal]

Comss is a tester I no longer follow at all, as his samples contain many false positives... (and broken samples).

And who's to say it wasn't the antivirus that crashed on his machine? On my vm and on my pc when I was using Gdata, I never had this problem

Indeed, COMSS samples contain a large amount of PUA and illegal software. My mileage varies with GDATA. A lot of times it has been very buggy and resource hungry both on a VM and an actual PC albeit hasn't crashed.

 

[CyberDevil]

Comss is a tester I no longer follow at all, as his samples contain many false positives... (and broken samples).

Does that make a big difference? Since he runs two on-demand scans first and then runs each sample manually, the antivirus has enough time to analyze and react - at least it's not script bombarding. False samples or not, the antivirus' minimum goal is to preserve its own functionality. I think so.

 

[Shadowra]

Does that make a big difference? Since he runs two on-demand scans first and then runs each sample manually, the antivirus has enough time to analyze and react - at least it's not script bombarding. False samples or not, the antivirus' minimum goal is to preserve its own functionality. I think so.

I also perform an analysis and launch manually
But yes there is a difference... testing a product with broken samples or false positives, you don't test it efficiently... (especially using only .EXE files)

Indeed, COMSS samples contain a large amount of PUA and illegal software. My mileage varies with GDATA. A lot of times it has been very buggy and resource hungry both on a VM and an actual PC albeit hasn't crashed.

Exactly

 

[KnownStormChaser]

The last time I tried G Data a couple of years ago, it was incredibly slow on the system. Any program I opened took significantly longer to open than any other AV Ive used. Between 5 and 10 seconds to open something like a web browser when normally it's like 1 second. And my PC is no slouch. I am not sure if it was just a bug or if other people have experienced something similar. I didn't have it installed for long because it was very annoying. Even Bitdefender itself or Emsisoft were not that slow, it was just something with G Data.

 

[Trident]

GData protection wise has always been way above average, but in terms of user experience…
Not my cup of tea.