Real-World Protection Test August 2018

[Hawaii007]

Comparison | AV-Comparatives

 

[Mariihh]

Eset it's getting worse and worse, what a setback. Congratulations to F-Secure who lowered their false positives

 

[ChemicalB]

Thanks for sharing, I know these tests are just indicative but yeah good job F-Secure

 

[ForgottenSeer 69673]

Wonder if they set WD to hardened setting or leave default?

 

[Paul.R]

Eset is doing great here:
https://www.mrg-effitas.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/MRG-Effitas-2018Q2-360-Assessment.pdf

 

[amico81]

Bullguard with bitdefender sigs higher f/p than bitdefender....how is it possible? their sleeping BB "Sentry" cannot be the reason

Edit: i see Panda with 100%....ok now I need some beer....with a big grain of salt

 

[In2an3_PpG]

Wonder if they set WD to hardened setting or leave default?

Settings

In the consumer test-series, all product settings are left at their default values. In the enterprise test-series, setting changes are allowed and documented inside the reports.

 

[ChemicalB]

In the consumer test-series, all product settings are left at their default values.

Yeah it is reasonable: default settings for default users

 

[Mahesh Sudula]

Yes i now appreciate F Secure developers..they really worked on it
I am testing it past 2 weeks..Fp's drastically came down even with those rare applications
The above results prove it..Finally DG stood by its name from Hash Blocking:emoji_v::emoji_v:

 

[shmu26]

Wonder if they set WD to hardened setting or leave default?

They say that they test the products at default settings.
I see that other posters already said the same...

 

[In2an3_PpG]

Yeah it is reasonable: default settings for default users

That is pretty much the aim with their consumer testing. Default. Highly doubt you will see many regular consumers (outside of MT for example) changing any settings.

 

[ChemicalB]

That is pretty much the aim with their consumer testing. Default. Highly doubt you will see many regular consumers (outside of MT for example) changing any settings.

Agreed!

 

[Dave Russo]

Eset is doing great here:
https://www.mrg-effitas.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/MRG-Effitas-2018Q2-360-Assessment.pdf

Eset looks like the best in these test,nothing new but who can you really trust?

 

[Paul.R]

@Dave Russo

Malware samples section, on this forum

 

[Brie]

is avira really that good?

 

[In2an3_PpG]

is avira really that good?

Signature wise including their cloud, yes.

 

[shmu26]

This test was a "real world" test, which is quite different from a malware hub test.
A "real world" test tries to simulate as best as possible the typical situation surrounding a malware attack.
For instance, in the "real world", zero-days are usually delivered by email or by malicious link. They don't come in zipped packages that strip them of the "mark of the web".
That's one reason why AVs perform much better in such tests than they do in malware hub. Just because an AV fails miserably in the malware hub doesn't mean that it will fail miserably in the real world.

 

[LDogg]

Are these sorts of tests w/ the Mal Hub ones also taken as a pinch of salt, or do these differ to help people make a proper AV choice? (hypothetical question)

~LDogg

 

[Gandalf_The_Grey]

I thinks all those tests including the ones from the HUB are a great resource.
If an AV sucks in testing, you're free to choose another one that doesn't...

 

[SUPRA]

what about Sophos home premium.....???

Also shall I shift from ESET by seeing this results??