Forums
New posts
Search forums
News
Security News
Technology News
Giveaways
Giveaways, Promotions and Contests
Discounts & Deals
Reviews
Users Reviews
Video Reviews
Support
Windows Malware Removal Help & Support
Inactive Support Threads
Mac Malware Removal Help & Support
Mobile Malware Removal Help & Support
Blog
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Reply to thread
Menu
Install the app
Install
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
Security
Security Statistics and Reports
Modern protection without signatures – comparison test on real threats (Advanced In The Wild Malware Test)
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Andy Ful" data-source="post: 977639" data-attributes="member: 32260"><p>If the intention of this test was to <strong>show which AV has got the best protection against threats blocked at Level 3</strong>, then one can make the conclusions as follows:</p><ol> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">Comodo, Emsisoft, and Malwarebytes are among the top products. This does not exclude any of the other AVs except Defender. We already know that Defender blocked 78% of threats at Level 3 and no more. Other AVs could in theory block more on Level 3 with disabled web protection.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">One cannot say much about the protection against threats blocked at Level 3 provided by other AVs, except that for Defender and Avast this protection is good (only Comodo, Emsisoft, and Malwarebytes blocked more at Level 3, for sure).</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">One cannot exclude the possibility that the protection of Defender at Level 3 might be better compared to Avira, F-Secure, and SecureAPlus (they did not block more at Level 3).</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">The fact that Defender missed 22% of threats is not conclusive here, because these threats might be blocked on Level 1 and 2 by other AVs (so irrelevant for Level 3 blocks). Even if Defender would use web protection (like SmartScreen) or BAFS then these threats would be blocked at Level 1 or 2, so the protection at Level 3 would not change for Defender, too.</li> </ol><p>As we can see the test results for blocking threats at Level 3 are not very informative except for Comodo, Emsisoft, and Malwarebytes.<img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite111" alt=":(" title="Frown :(" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":(" /></p><p></p><p>Edit.</p><p>The task would be much simpler when testing all products on the same footing, by forcing AVs to use only Level 3. Of course, such tests could not be reliable as a measure of overall protection.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Andy Ful, post: 977639, member: 32260"] If the intention of this test was to [B]show which AV has got the best protection against threats blocked at Level 3[/B], then one can make the conclusions as follows: [LIST=1] [*]Comodo, Emsisoft, and Malwarebytes are among the top products. This does not exclude any of the other AVs except Defender. We already know that Defender blocked 78% of threats at Level 3 and no more. Other AVs could in theory block more on Level 3 with disabled web protection. [*]One cannot say much about the protection against threats blocked at Level 3 provided by other AVs, except that for Defender and Avast this protection is good (only Comodo, Emsisoft, and Malwarebytes blocked more at Level 3, for sure). [*]One cannot exclude the possibility that the protection of Defender at Level 3 might be better compared to Avira, F-Secure, and SecureAPlus (they did not block more at Level 3). [*]The fact that Defender missed 22% of threats is not conclusive here, because these threats might be blocked on Level 1 and 2 by other AVs (so irrelevant for Level 3 blocks). Even if Defender would use web protection (like SmartScreen) or BAFS then these threats would be blocked at Level 1 or 2, so the protection at Level 3 would not change for Defender, too. [/LIST] As we can see the test results for blocking threats at Level 3 are not very informative except for Comodo, Emsisoft, and Malwarebytes.:( Edit. The task would be much simpler when testing all products on the same footing, by forcing AVs to use only Level 3. Of course, such tests could not be reliable as a measure of overall protection. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Top
