AVLab.pl Summary of security tests in the year 2020 | Product of the year awards!

[Adrian Ścibor]

Dear MalwareTips Readers!

We have published the summary of 2020 for Advanced In The Wild Malware Test. In the report you can find a detailed information and awarded product.

Article: Summary of security tests in the year 2020 - AVLab

PDF report: https://avlab.pl/avlab-product-of-the-year-2020/

 

[Divine_Barakah]

 

[ErzCrz]

Dear MalwareTips Readers!

We have published the summary of 2020 for Advanced In The Wild Malware Test. In the report you can find a detailed information and awarded product.

Article: Summary of security tests in the year 2020 - AVLab

PDF report: https://avlab.pl/avlab-product-of-the-year-2020/

Great testing as always. These tests always end up bringing me back to Comodo I find WD tweaked with Hard_configurator for the most part just as effective so I bounce between the two.

 

[Cortex]

Most of the tests these days tend to have similar results with few surprises - Thank you!

 

[Azure]

Most of the tests these days tend to have similar results with few surprises - Thank you!

Having consistency in various tests for a long period of time is actually good.

 

[Digmor Crusher]

Do we even need to read this, I'm pretty sure most of us know what the top 3 AV's are??

 

[Kongo]

Do we even need to read this, I'm pretty sure most of us know what the top 3 AV's are??

Protegent, Iobit Malware Fighter and Total AV

 

[Cortex]

Having consistency in various tests for a long period of time is actually good.

I thought I said that?

 

[Nagisa]

November-December report. CIS only blocked %19 of files with its signatures. What's the point of taking part in malware tests if your product basically blocks all unknown samples by default? That's something I didn't understand.

 

[FireHammer]

Bitdefender Total Security 100% not bad.

 

[Kongo]

November-December report. CIS only blocked %19 of files with its signatures. What's the point of taking part in malware tests if your product basically blocks all unknown samples by default? That's something I didn't understand.

View attachment 253132

Comodo Endpoint protection has worse signatures than the IS version or what?

 

[ErzCrz]

Consistency does help and a big factor when choosing protection. There is the whole argument of age and source of of samples etc. with these sorts of tests which is why it's good there area number of them. The hardening approach with H_C is still my preferred way to go with things on the whole. It's just good these products get detected and Avlab's breaking down the test into types like macro and fileless is great.

 

[Mariihh]

What a joke, Comodo as the product of the year, don't make me laugh.

 

[mazskolnieces]

What's the point of taking part in malware tests if your product basically blocks all unknown samples by default?

That's the whole point of Comodo's virtual container. Comodo only has signatures for old malware (more than a few days old). Everything else not rated as Safe is run inside the virtual container. That is how the product was designed to work.

No matter which solution a user chooses, if there is a failure, the user is at-fault - no matter what. Read any AV's or any security product's EULA. The end user is always responsible for an infection or security failure. And no security software publisher will ever offer a zero-infection guarantee. So your best bet, if you are the paranoid type and seriously initiated about your security, is to use default deny, learn what is required, and not rely completely upon software to make decisions for you.

 

[Kongo]

That's the whole point of Comodo's virtual container. Comodo only has signatures for old malware (more than a few days old). Everything else not rated as Safe is run inside the virtual container. That is how the product was designed to work.

No matter which solution a user chooses, if there is a failure, the user is at-fault - no matter what. Read any AV's or any security product's EULA. The end user is always responsible for an infection or security failure. And no security software publisher will ever offer a zero-infection guarantee. So your best bet, if you are the paranoid type and seriously initiated about your security, is to use default deny, learn what is required, and not rely completely upon software to make decisions for you.

He didn't question Comodo's functionality. He just said that it doesn't belong in such AV comparisons which are basically for the average consumer. The average consumer wants to be protected without checking the sandbox every time he/she runs a file. Comodo may protect from malware, but so does any default-deny software and it wouldn't be considered as the best protection, cause no average consumer would use or would even be able to deal with such programs.

 

[Tutman]

Yay Avast... er... wait I am using AVG free now... oh yea wait... same thing. Yay Avast!

 

[mazskolnieces]

He didn't question Comodo's functionality. He just said that it doesn't belong in such AV comparisons which are basically for the average consumer. The average consumer wants to be protected without checking the sandbox every time he/she runs a file. Comodo may protect from malware, but so does any default-deny software and it wouldn't be considered as the best protection, cause no average consumer would use or would even be able to deal with such programs.

AVLab has always included default deny products. Even in this one SecureAPlus is a default deny product.

The average consumer cannot handle even Windows Defender. It's their fault. Not anyone else's. In this day and age, an individual being IT illiterate is unacceptable to society. The thinking that people are not capable nor fully responsible for their own security because they cannot handle it is obsolete mode of thinking about users. The malware problem shall never be solved by merely installing software and letting it make decisions for people. The security industry has tried for nearly 40 years to make automation work for security, and all you have to do is look at the click-baity IT security news released any day within the past 20 years to see that security software is an utter failure. Even the industry itself has basically written off AV software as a completely inadequate solution.

 

[blackice]

AVLab has always included default deny products. Even in this one SecureAPlus is a default deny product.

The average consumer cannot handle even Windows Defender. It's their fault. Not anyone else's. In this day and age, an individual being IT illiterate is unacceptable to society. The thinking that people are not capable nor fully responsible for their own security because they cannot handle it is obsolete mode of thinking about users. The malware problem shall never be solved by merely installing software and letting it make decisions for people. The security industry has tried for nearly 40 years to make automation work for security, and all you have to do is look at the click-baity IT security news released any day within the past 20 years to see that security software is an utter failure. Even the industry itself has basically written off AV software as a completely inadequate solution.

I think life is a bit more nuanced for those that aren’t security enthusiasts. It’s a spectrum of people like any other area.

 

[Nagisa]

AVLab has always included default deny products. Even in this one SecureAPlus is a default deny product.

SecureAPlus is not a default-deny product in a way Comodo is. When you find a new file, it has to be undetected by all cloud AV vendors and local APEX AI for it becomes fully unknown to you. And on new versions it automatically allows some programs.

SecureAge adds Automatic Mode to SecureAPlus – Global Security Mag Online

SecureAge Technology has announced the addition of a new feature to its SecureAPlus application control solution so that home users don't need to become cyber security experts. Automatic Mode…

www.globalsecuritymag.com

On Comodo you will much more often encounter unknown programs and all you will have is bad signatures, inadequate BB and virtualization.

The average consumer cannot handle even Windows Defender. It's their fault. Not anyone else's. In this day and age, an individual being IT illiterate is unacceptable to society. The thinking that people are not capable nor fully responsible for their own security because they cannot handle it is obsolete mode of thinking about users. The malware problem shall never be solved by merely installing software and letting it make decisions for people. The security industry has tried for nearly 40 years to make automation work for security, and all you have to do is look at the click-baity IT security news released any day within the past 20 years to see that security software is an utter failure. Even the industry itself has basically written off AV software as a completely inadequate solution.

Kaspersky is working well for people though.

 

[SomeRandomCat]

Honestly, any properly coded default-deny security-software such as SecureAPlus, Comodo, Kaspersky - they are all going to be extremely easy to use for the average person. The reason I say this, is because the average person won't be downloading anything that isn't already in said product's white-list, so they won't have to answer prompts or check the sandbox.

I think its good these test include such software, especially since it is the default configuration when installing them. It has always been absolutely insane to me that so many AntiVirus companies depend on blacklisting. There are always going to be 0-day threats and for both the experienced PC user and novice alike, those are the real problem.

For a couple hundred bucks just about anyone can pay an experienced coder to whip a reliable RAT up and bypass signature detection (even more so now days, than 20 years ago). The average user isn't going to have heuristics on high, and even if they did, most products still wouldn't be likely to properly detect something properly packed with a cert.

I do think it's a bit scary though that they all trust certificates signed by certain companies by default, but I guess those are more rare cases.

SecureAPlus is not a default-deny product in a way Comodo is. When you find a new file, it has to be undetected by all cloud AV vendors and local APEX AI for it becomes fully unknown to you. And on new versions it automatically allows some programs.

SecureAge adds Automatic Mode to SecureAPlus – Global Security Mag Online

SecureAge Technology has announced the addition of a new feature to its SecureAPlus application control solution so that home users don't need to become cyber security experts. Automatic Mode…

www.globalsecuritymag.com

On Comodo you will much more often encounter unknown programs and all you will have is bad signatures, inadequate BB and virtualization.



Kaspersky is working well for people though.

I played around with SecureAPlus a couple weeks ago, and I thought default-deny was setup out of the box, but maybe I remember wrong and had to set it to that.