AV-Comparatives Malware Protection Test September 2022

[Anthony Qian]

The result is due for release tomorrow, but for some reason, it was released today.

Spoiler

ESET didn't manage to get a 3-star certificate, once again.


Source: Malware Protection Test September 2022

 

[Kaki]

Norton are you good ? Where is your FPs

 

[HarborFront]

My Avast

 

[forgottenuser79643]

Pleasantly surprised with G Data! And Microsoft's aim for 69 in offline detection.

 

[Kiss]

Can't believe in a test like this, Panda again almost 100% and with better protection than eset and trend micro, in the same way Avast Avg 100%

 

[zkSnark]

Avast, AVG and GData better than Kaspersky now?

 

[ScandinavianFish]

Avast, AVG and GData better than Kaspersky now?

What is strange is how TotalAV, an PUP that just uses the Avira signatures, somehow has better protection than Kaspersky

 

[Gandalf_The_Grey]

Also have a look at the appendix about the false alarms:

False Alarm Test September 2022

This report is an appendix to the Malware Protection Test September 2022 listing details about the discovered False Alarms.

In AV testing, it is important to measure not only detection capabilities but also reliability. One aspect of reliability is the ability to recognize clean files as such, and not to produce false alarms (false positives). No product is immune from false positives (FPs), but some produce more than others. False Positives Tests measure which programs do best in this respect, i.e. distinguish clean files from malicious files, despite their context. There is no complete collection of all legitimate files that exist, and so no “ultimate” test of FPs can be done. What can be done, and is reasonable, is to create and use a set of clean files which is independently collected. If, when using such a set, one product has e.g. 15 FPs and another only 2, it is likely that the first product is more prone to FPs than the other. It doesn’t mean the product with 2 FPs doesn’t have more than 2 FPs globally, but it is the relative number that is important.

False Alarm Test September 2022

Details about the False Alarms for September 2022. This report is part of the malware proctection test for September 2022.

www.av-comparatives.org

PDF:

https://www.av-comparatives.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/avc_fps_202209.pdf

 

[forgottenuser79643]

I'm mostly impressed by the offline detection, which has fallen out of favour by a lot of security implementations. The first thing I have recommended for years is to get the latest definitions and updates for your security solution (and second opinion software) and then unplug the PC from the internet. A vastly great number of these malware and viruses want, and need, to phone home. Can't do that without a connection to the outside...

Which is why I'm liking the improvement of ESET and G Data in having relatively low false positives in this test.

 

[simmerskool]

The result is due for release tomorrow, but for some reason, it was released today.

Spoiler

View attachment 269992

ESET didn't manage to get a 3-star certificate, once again.


Source: Malware Protection Test September 2022

right...? the lowest in the top tier had 99.96%, eset in 2d tier had 99.91% (difference of 5 detections out of 10,019), but eset with 0 (zero) false positives, while others in top tier had up to 8 false positives. Seems like a somewhat arbitrary fine line between 3*** & 2** Meanwhile F-Secure not tested?

 

[ErzCrz]

Interesting tests as always and some great results. I just prefer sandboxing or default deny hence my liking of Comodo or Hard_Configurator approach. Aferall, protection is about layers I just need to be less security paranoid at times lol

 

[Guilhermesene]

I'm mostly impressed by the offline detection, which has fallen out of favour by a lot of security implementations. The first thing I have recommended for years is to get the latest definitions and updates for your security solution (and second opinion software) and then unplug the PC from the internet. A vastly great number of these malware and viruses want, and need, to phone home. Can't do that without a connection to the outside...

Which is why I'm liking the improvement of ESET and G Data in having relatively low false positives in this test.

Like you, I also worry about offline detection, even more so in times when most AV's today are migrating to cloud services

Offline detection is still quite useful especially in specific scenarios where the internet fluctuates or the AV service server has some connection problem.

Glad to know I'm not the only one who values this parameter

 

[zkSnark]

Like you, I also worry about offline detection, even more so in times when most AV's today are migrating to cloud services

Offline detection is still quite useful especially in specific scenarios where the internet fluctuates or the AV service server has some connection problem.

Offline and Online protection rates are better than compromised and false positives, aren't they? So for me, GData, Avast and AVG are the winners from this perspective. But have to consider how were their past records too.

 

[Guilhermesene]

Offline and Online protection rates are better than compromised and false positives, aren't they? So for me, GData, Avast and AVG are the winners from this perspective. But have to consider how were their past records too.

It depends on which point of view you want to see for some it could be the offline rate, others the online rate, others the number of false positives etc.

 

[Gangelo]

To be honest, the only thing I see in the results is that if you use any reputable vendor and are online, they all offer top notch protection .
Stick to what runs best on your system and you are familiar with it.

 

[Shadowra]

I had already explained why I don't believe in their "tests"

 

[Anthony Qian]

right...? the lowest in the top tier had 99.96%, eset in 2d tier had 99.91% (difference of 5 detections out of 10,019), but eset with 0 (zero) false positives, while others in top tier had up to 8 false positives. Seems like a somewhat arbitrary fine line between 3*** & 2** Meanwhile F-Secure not tested?

According to AV-C websites, they classify tier 1 and 2 using statistical methods. In this test, the difference is very small because most vendors did quite well. It also implies the virus samples collected by AV-C are not so fresh and/or most security vendors improved its protection capabilities.

 

[simmerskool]

According to AV-C websites, they classify tier 1 and 2 using statistical methods. In this test, the difference is very small because most vendors did quite well. It also implies the virus samples collected by AV-C are not so fresh and/or most security vendors improved its protection capabilities.

ok, but still makes me wonder what weight AV-C gave to false positives.

 

[zkSnark]

I had already explained why I don't believe in their "tests"

Where? And which tests to rely on?

 

[simmerskool]

Where? And which tests to rely on?

Watch Shadowra's videos cruelsister's videos & posts, malware test gang here...