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
Real-World Protection Test Feb-Mar 2021 – Factsheet
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Andy Ful" data-source="post: 938772" data-attributes="member: 32260"><p>All such tests are similar to playing poker or bridge when players have similar playing strengths. The players sometimes can win and sometimes lose. The winner in one particular game is not necessarily the best player and vice versa. Usually, in the next turns the winners and losers change almost randomly. Being the loser in a single game usually does not mean that the playing strength and winning strategy was decreased.</p><p></p><p>In this particular test, most results except McAfee seem pretty normal as compared to cumulative results. The Avast result is better than usual, but missing 0-3 samples is very common in AV-Comparatives tests (close to the average 4 missed samples for Avast).</p><p></p><p>AV-Comparatives Real-World 2019-2020 (4 tests) + March 2021</p><p>.................... Missed samples....................</p><p>----------------------2019-2020----------March 2021</p><p>Avast.......................<strong><span style="color: rgb(61, 142, 185)">15</span></strong>...................<span style="color: rgb(61, 142, 185)"><strong>0</strong></span></p><p>Avira........................ 8...................4</p><p>Kaspersky Lab.........9....................3</p><p>McAfee...................<span style="color: rgb(184, 49, 47)"><strong>29</strong></span>...................<span style="color: rgb(184, 49, 47)"><strong>2</strong></span></p><p>Microsoft................<strong><span style="color: rgb(61, 142, 185)">10</span></strong>...................<span style="color: rgb(61, 142, 185)"><strong>7</strong></span></p><p>Norton(Symantec).<span style="color: rgb(61, 142, 185)">.</span><strong><span style="color: rgb(61, 142, 185)">5</span></strong>.....................<strong><span style="color: rgb(61, 142, 185)">3.5</span></strong></p><p>TrendMicro..............4.....................0</p><p></p><p>If we sum up the results in the first column then all AVs from the above table missed 80 samples and this gives 20 samples per one test. If we sum up the missed samples in March we get 19.5 samples. So this test on average is similar to all 4 tests from the last two years. These results can also suggest that the infection rate for the average AV in March 2021 is very similar to the years 2019-2021.</p><p></p><p>The results of Microsoft and Norton are worse than usual but still, this can be an accidental result (especially for Norton). In the case of Microsoft, it can be also a suggestion that in the testing period the Machine Learning algorithm was not optimal. This is a constant problem for many AVs to keep the right balance between protection and false positives rate.</p><p></p><p>Post edited (added comment for Avast).</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Andy Ful, post: 938772, member: 32260"] All such tests are similar to playing poker or bridge when players have similar playing strengths. The players sometimes can win and sometimes lose. The winner in one particular game is not necessarily the best player and vice versa. Usually, in the next turns the winners and losers change almost randomly. Being the loser in a single game usually does not mean that the playing strength and winning strategy was decreased. In this particular test, most results except McAfee seem pretty normal as compared to cumulative results. The Avast result is better than usual, but missing 0-3 samples is very common in AV-Comparatives tests (close to the average 4 missed samples for Avast). AV-Comparatives Real-World 2019-2020 (4 tests) + March 2021 .................... Missed samples.................... ----------------------2019-2020----------March 2021 Avast.......................[B][COLOR=rgb(61, 142, 185)]15[/COLOR][/B]...................[COLOR=rgb(61, 142, 185)][B]0[/B][/COLOR] Avira........................ 8...................4 Kaspersky Lab.........9....................3 McAfee...................[COLOR=rgb(184, 49, 47)][B]29[/B][/COLOR]...................[COLOR=rgb(184, 49, 47)][B]2[/B][/COLOR] Microsoft................[B][COLOR=rgb(61, 142, 185)]10[/COLOR][/B]...................[COLOR=rgb(61, 142, 185)][B]7[/B][/COLOR] Norton(Symantec).[COLOR=rgb(61, 142, 185)].[/COLOR][B][COLOR=rgb(61, 142, 185)]5[/COLOR][/B].....................[B][COLOR=rgb(61, 142, 185)]3.5[/COLOR][/B] TrendMicro..............4.....................0 If we sum up the results in the first column then all AVs from the above table missed 80 samples and this gives 20 samples per one test. If we sum up the missed samples in March we get 19.5 samples. So this test on average is similar to all 4 tests from the last two years. These results can also suggest that the infection rate for the average AV in March 2021 is very similar to the years 2019-2021. The results of Microsoft and Norton are worse than usual but still, this can be an accidental result (especially for Norton). In the case of Microsoft, it can be also a suggestion that in the testing period the Machine Learning algorithm was not optimal. This is a constant problem for many AVs to keep the right balance between protection and false positives rate. Post edited (added comment for Avast). [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Top
