I personally don't like the BitDefender engine, I believe it is highly over-rated because of AV testing sites which are paid well for the testing results. Even if the detection rates were accurate, detection is only one factor to consider when choosing an AV. From high false positives to system performance issues and bugs, it just not a good engine for real-time protection.
However Emsisoft probably is the best because they actually take steps to remove the high false positive detections and their own engine is pretty good by itself, bugs and system performance issues not as bad as others. Still I only prefer to use it as a on-demand scanner.
Thanks.
Cheer Cheer GREAT comment.
Personally i agree a 1000% with your comment, and i would like to add that: Most people do not realize that there are a dozen AV Vendors out there who strictly rely on the technology and signatures of bigger names.
So its not uncommon that scanning engines and malware signatures are being shared or made available to "smaller vendors".
But this does not mean that Vendor X who uses Bitdefenders engine will have the same result as the flagship version of Bitdefender itself.
On top of that on needs to realize that testing results and even a test marathon will produce snapshot results which are being based upon that particular time and moment.
And this does not reflect the performance in a real home or business environment. Mainly because within a testing lab a program is being tested rigorous BUT human intervention, underlying business infrastructure and different software which is being used in real world is NOT a factor do give accurate results from a testing lab POV.
However if you are reading the test results of the known testing labs then they will generally give you a idea, about what you could expect from a chosen AV solution.
Fact thou is that, real world environment, and network infrastructure based external settings and configurations can drastic change the performance of a AV solution in both a good way, and equally bad way.
In regards to Bitdefender and MANY others listed here, there is not a single one that is being used within a respectable company who takes security serious.
Immunet does have a premium solution which is regarded as really good, but even they will not be installed at in a business environment.
One needs to realize the differences between "home" "allround" and "business" versions of AV solutions and security applications that is being used.
For example Bitdefender they are a respectable AV. But they are focussed on Home environments, where the protection gained from their solutions is aimed at being user friendly. Also its being made with the average user in mind, who MAY not have enough technical know how.
So its whole internal architecture is based upon that.
Which also means that their effectiveness is limited, and that false positives are prone to happen.
You have to realize that within a company network environment, people will not use Kazaa, Bearshare or Limewire or Torrents.
Also weird sites will not be accessed and user actions are limited to actual only use the pc when strictly needed.
To put it in simple words: A company employee who uses the pc will not pull crap on their system, while a home users usually do not have a clue what they are doing and using their pc in a way that would make a system admin go wanna beat them to pulp with a wet tuna if they would pull such a stunt within a protected company network.
Really the general home pc user is just one brain cell away from being classified as brain death.
They do not need a high end solution, they need a solution that keeps their system running long enough to BUY the next cheap pc.
As generally they do not have a clue. Generally the typical home user will not even be allowed near a company pc.
So this also changes the scope of protection needed. So all this user friendly and user GUI and all these modules that are made are really not needed within a business environment, and everything is being emphasised on detection, removal, monitoring and crash prevention / fallback configs with the specific idea of keeping the system online no matter what (system continuity)
My point here is aside from being a home product, the BD engine is really not that good, and the core engine that BD uses themselves is light years better then the "export" versions which are usually stripped down older versions.
If they would ship their full option engine to a other AV vendor then they would put themselves out of business.
Also some vendors ONLY use the internal structure of engines and add stuff of their own, so technically its a hybrid engine BASED upon BD.
Emisoft is one of the very few vendors who are allowed to modify the BD engine, and they have actually improved the BD engine.
In the field it is proven to be less FP and more accurate then the engine used in Bitdefender products.
Anyway most have their own AV flavour and their own experience and thats ok. But one needs to realize that home packages and business packages are 2 complete different worlds, and by default the potential of a home package is nowhere close to what a industrial AV solution already achieves on minimal settings. Disagree all you want, but there is a reason why there are only 5 names within the AV industry that are dominating the industrial security market: Symantec, Mcafee, Sophos, F-Secure, Kaspersky and obviously this is not because they are cheap or have great marketing. Sure some might say that there are some other brands out there Sure whatever.
Don't understand Emsisoft is small company, they couldn't make valuable AV themselves
Most AV's use mutliscanning,primarily because no single Av engine is 100% Each engine uses different scanning methods and updates.Using more than 1 increases the chances of catching malware.
Emsisoft uses an in-house engine with BitDefender engine
G-Data AntiVirus uses Avast and BitDefender's engine
F-secure uses an in-house engine with BitDefender's engine
"GData is bigger, they work in security for ages and they have real developers and not only GUI programmers"
I know people that work for Emsisoft and would have to disagree with the above comment
Just for the record, Emisoft is NOT a small company and dates back to 2003 (granted their team is small but their importance within the Zero day community is HUGE and is pretty much as important as Sophos.) , And G-Data is actually the new kid on the block here.
Just a few small differences here, Emisoft is a fully qualified AV vendor and developer, they also are part of the Zero day team which is reserved to only a few names in the industry. Needless to say G-data is not a part of that and neither are they a fully qualified AV vendor and developer.
They are so called GUI developers, even tho i need to mention that this is changing as right now they actually are a fully qualified developer as they released a in-house hybrid engine.
Its not even subject to debate its fact and public knowledge.
Each engine uses different scanning methods and updates. Using more than 1 increases the chances of catching malware.
Really? O may <facepalm> you got to be kidding me. This little thing is utterly Bull my friend. Dunno which self proclaimed internet Guru told you that but take my word for it as professional multiple engines CAN increase detection true, and specially with more mature brands this seem to be the case.
However a single engine configuration can be just or even more effective:
http://go.eset.com/us/resources/white-papers/cfet2011_multiscanning_paper.pdf
Sure will not deny that you do have a point by saying that M-Scan does increase chances, but understand my comment and where i come from.
There is a reason i say this. Also you should understand the difference between multi engine scanning where there are different modules running as different process within a program (Not so effective FACT) or single engine scanning who use multiple scanning techniques within the same process (Highly effective Fact Lol)
Anyway no disrespect intended buddy.
Ps edit: Littlebits i quoted your post and commented on it but the reaction is generally and is not towards you. Just realized that i sound like someone who was giving you a lecture lol.
