Real-World Protection Test April 2015

comfortablynumb15 said:
I know how they are tested :) Let's just leave it as my having a healthy skepticism when it comes to the business world. For Kaspersky, to be 100% honest with you I haven't used the product in some time now, so recent examples would be difficult to give you. I'm not saying take my word as fact, never would do that. I can say that quite a few of them involved various game patches in the past. I don't think Kaspersky has ever liked those though. When I choose any security program, I look at known forums like this, gauge actual user opinions over some time and then test it on my machine. If AVC testing and my experience is about the same, sweet!
Click to expand...
That's the only right way to think and I agree 100% with you!
And game patches were always risky, in the "old" days not a lot of users patched their games, so the files weren't really known by KSN or their researchers, quite a lot of them used techniques commonly found in malware so it seems plausible.
 
Yeah I've been bitten in the behind by game patches in the past, so I don't do much of that these days. I'm not sure if still is this way, but I recall not very many years ago when AVs almost across the board put patches on their hit list. They don't often like system tools either I've noticed.
 
According to this result, they said trend micro able to block atleast 99% of wide spread viruses, but yet, the office scan (Trend micro endpoint) cant even detect the so called shortcut viruses (Consist of 2 main component of malware, Trojan and Worm).
 
comfortablynumb15 said:
I know how they are tested :) Let's just leave it as my having a healthy skepticism when it comes to the business world. For Kaspersky, to be 100% honest with you I haven't used the product in some time now, so recent examples would be difficult to give you. I'm not saying take my word as fact, never would do that. I can say that quite a few of them involved various game patches in the past. I don't think Kaspersky has ever liked those though. When I choose any security program, I look at known forums like this, gauge actual user opinions over some time and then test it on my machine. If AVC testing and my experience is about the same, sweet!
Click to expand...

Kaspersky is the boss :cool:


top3-2014.jpg


http://eugene.kaspersky.com/2015/03/17/independent-av-testing-in-2014-interesting-results/


I dont use Kaspersky (Emsisoft fanboy here:p), but it is simple the most consistent antivirus solution, always in the top for years ...
 
  • Like
Reactions: jamescv7
Avira, Bitdefender = Always same, its already a home-court based independent testing organization ;)

Trend Micro = I knew their web based threat detection capabilities are really strong and no surprise in another round.

Kaspersky, F-secure = Neck to neck where surely they don't want to fail each other.

Panda - A little bit surprisingly since their performance is vary on other reference; FP rates are well probably at that time got good whitelisting however some users including me managed to got FP abruptly.

Anyway consistency's awareness makes it really hard to break where achievements should be good as always.

Take for granted on the methodology procedure.
 
Panda Free 100% :eek:

In the installation comes with toolbar can be considered pup.

The surprise is the Quihoo excluded by use engines BD already enabled in tests :cool:
 
These "official" tests mean nothing to me. In my own testing, I get different, if not very different, results. As for performance testing, each product works differently on each configuration. An example of this, is some people will say Kaspersky slows down your computer. It did not slow mine down and I ALWAYS max out the settings for max protection. False positives don't mean anything to me. If I have to add exclusions, so be it.

As for best security solution... there is none. They all slip up at some point or another. All perform differently on different configurations (in terms of system slow down/compatibility). I use my common sense first, AV second. Prevention then protection. I will admit though, I hold bias against security solutions that don't give the user immediate options of what to do with a file once detected. As for behavioral blocking, it should block then inform then user. Don't want it to do more damage if you happen to be away from your computer.
 
You and I think alike. I'm on the fence about asking what to do with detected problems. For people like me, who aren't necessarily "pro" but have a general idea of what we're doing and some experience, being asked is a good thing. You and I both know there have been many instances of files being mistakenly flagged that have taken systems down, and that many AV vendors treat certain files and tools more suspiciously than others. We're prepared for that and can say no. But, what happens when grandma sees a big warning popup and a loud siren going off out of the blue? It says "Malicious file detected, quarantine or exclude"? I'm sure in most cases the next scene involves her getting startled and letting the AV get rid of it..and down goes the computer.

Behavioral blocking is a crapshoot. Too many legitimate programs do "suspicious" things and I've watched HIPs programs carpet bomb users with leetspeak popups, leading to either an infected computer or a downed computer/program because nobody knew what the thing was talking about.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

You may also like...