App Review Real World, Evasive Malware and Performance Test by Trident

[harlan4096]

Probably they made some changes in the site, because when that link was provided in K. Community was working fine and pointing directly to new product line downloads, I will report it.

 

[flaubert1971]

 

[Trident]

This is presented as an updater for existing users.

 

[harlan4096]

You can do a clean install or just install over previous installed versions (KTS/KIS...) keeping most of the settings.

 

[Trident]

You can do a clean install or just install over previous installed versions (KTS/KIS...) keeping most of the settings.

So it’s like the Norton Remove and Reinstall Tool (that can be obtained via norton.com/uninstall). If you have the app it will do a reinstall and if you don’t have it, it will download and install?

Btw what’s the point of putting “Download Trial” button that asks for card and then leaving that there, underneath

 

[Trident]

The original post can not be edited anymore.

The (- 1 requires credit card to download) can be removed and the whole line about downloading from comss.ru.
The overall score will go up one point.

This should be added instead:
“Kaspersky allows trial to be downloaded but uses tricks to make it more difficult for users not familiar with their website and tools. “

 

[ddave]

So the updated score will be:
Champion: Emsisoft; Bitdefender
Second best: F-secure; Avast
Third best: Kaspersky Standard; Eset Smart Security Premium (more expensive than Kaspersky); WiseVector StopX
To be avoided: ZoneAlarm

I really can't wait to see how well G-Data will do.

 

[artek]

We should test Sophos Home, it already includes HMP. See what Sophos has to offer us.

That's another option, but it doesn't always include the latest HMP.A protection tech afaik and I'm more curious to see how some of the adjunct protection systems (stuff like HMP.A and Comodo) do vs another simple AV system.

On most of my personal systems I like run things that augment defender's native protection and it's always interesting to see how these tools do on their own vs. more advanced threats (mostly because those are probably the only things that would get me infection wise).

 

[Trident]

So the updated score will be:
Champion: Emsisoft; Bitdefender
Second best: F-secure; Avast
Third best: Kaspersky Standard; Eset Smart Security Premium (more expensive than Kaspersky); WiseVector StopX
To be avoided: ZoneAlarm

I really can't wait to see how well G-Data will do.

Thanks for reiterating all of them. Just a minor correction, WiseVector failed the Real World Protection Test, which according to the framework set (the only way to evaluate is to have a set framework) disqualifies it. Out of curiosity and thanks to @Shadowra we’ve calculated a score but WiseVector real result is on the minus scale.
-100 for real world protection failure
-40 for missed rats
-20-50 for missed ransomware…
That makes the overall score about -60 and less than ZoneAlarm.

 

[Jengo]

So the updated score will be:
Champion: Emsisoft; Bitdefender
Second best: F-secure; Avast
Third best: Kaspersky Standard; Eset Smart Security Premium (more expensive than Kaspersky); WiseVector StopX
To be avoided: ZoneAlarm

I really can't wait to see how well G-Data will do.

I dont think AVAST was tested here"?

 

[Trident]

I dont think AVAST was tested here"?

Avast Free was tested.

 

[Jengo]

Avast Free was tested.

My mistake, i missed that part

 

[Trooper]

Emsisoft first?

 

[M4RT1NE2]

Emsisoft first?

+ BD

 

[Shadowra]

Emsisoft first?

You have to know that it is a strict protocol imposed by @Trident which is totally different from mine

Emsisoft is excellent yes, but it only uses the Bitdefender SDK and the malware was already known.
On a 0-day, I think Bitdefender would have an advantage especially because of their Cloud (Bitdefender can detect samples in scan while SDK based AVs can't)

Emsisoft's BB is excellent, but often subject to false alarms...

 

[Trooper]

You have to know that it is a strict protocol imposed by @Trident which is totally different from mine

Emsisoft is excellent yes, but it only uses the Bitdefender SDK and the malware was already known.
On a 0-day, I think Bitdefender would have an advantage especially because of their Cloud (Bitdefender can detect samples in scan while SDK based AVs can't)

Emsisoft's BB is excellent, but often subject to false alarms...

I agree with everything you said. But Emsi over Kaspersky? Not in my book anyway.

 

[M4RT1NE2]

I agree with everything you said. But Emsi over Kaspersky? Not in my book anyway.

Apparently so

 

[Trident]

I agree with everything you said. But Emsi over Kaspersky? Not in my book anyway.

If Kaspersky Application is tweaked, never in the world will anybody (including Bitdefender) win against them. The test strategy requires products to be tested with default settings. Otherwise various disputes will arise. All products are not tweaked.

Maybe I can do another Kaspersky test with tweaked Application Control.

 

[Trooper]

If Kaspersky Application is tweaked, never in the world will anybody (including Bitdefender) win against them. The test strategy requires products to be tested with default settings. Otherwise various disputes will arise. All products are not tweaked.

Maybe I can do another Kaspersky test with tweaked Application Control.

Would be cool. Even with defaults Kaspersky is strong. I guess I am just a bit surprised with the results. Cheers.

 

[Jonny Quest]

If Kaspersky Application is tweaked, never in the world will anybody (including Bitdefender) win against them. The test strategy requires products to be tested with default settings. Otherwise various disputes will arise. All products are not tweaked.

Maybe I can do another Kaspersky test with tweaked Application Control.

That's a good way to test, as a baseline reference. And then go from there.