- Dec 29, 2012
- 30
Which list is correct..... http://www.av-comparatives.org/av-vendors/ Or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitdefender ... Which antivirus uses BD's engine???
Which antivirus uses Bitdefender Engine?????
- Thread starter arsh
- Start date
- Feb 8, 2014
- 72
Qihoo 360 internet security
also G-Data,Emsisoft,IObit Advanced SystemCare,e-Scan ...
http://www.bitdefender.com/oem/news/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiscanning
also G-Data,Emsisoft,IObit Advanced SystemCare,e-Scan ...
http://www.bitdefender.com/oem/news/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiscanning
Last edited by a moderator:
- Jan 8, 2011
- 22,361
Both would be correct, but also depends when each article was last updated.
Littlebits
Retired Staff
- May 3, 2011
- 3,893
They are way too many to mention, BitDefender is one of the only Antivirus vendors that allows third-party developers to make exact clones of the products including many not so popular rogue developers and they resell the products with a higher price tag. For example look at Auslogics Antivirus, the only thing that was changed is its name everything else is an exact copy of BitDefender. For awhile Acronis had their version of BitDefender clone but it has been removed from their site, I guess it didn't sell very well.
Thanks.
Thanks.
- Sep 17, 2013
- 1,492
A bigger question is that while so many products use bitdefender engine then why the detection rate is not the same.
As you can see bitdefender and f secure is a top with 99% detection rate.
But emsisoft is with 98%
Yet bullguard, esan, gdata, qihoo has even lower than 96%
gdata, qihoo uses multiple antivirus engine so they must be above or very near bitdefender. but thats not the case in test result.
One can also argue that test results are rigged.
one thing i am certainly sure of is avast, avira cannot have such high detection rate.
As you can see bitdefender and f secure is a top with 99% detection rate.
But emsisoft is with 98%
Yet bullguard, esan, gdata, qihoo has even lower than 96%
gdata, qihoo uses multiple antivirus engine so they must be above or very near bitdefender. but thats not the case in test result.
One can also argue that test results are rigged.
one thing i am certainly sure of is avast, avira cannot have such high detection rate.
- Dec 28, 2013
- 16
Hello
Never trust a statistic you yourself have forged
According Google.de Bitdefender uses its own engine.
Die Virenscan-Engine von G Data sucht zusammen mit der Scan-Engine von Bitdefender nach Schadsoftware.
LPlace virus scan engine from G Data analyzed together with the scan engine Bitdefender for malicious software.
By
Never trust a statistic you yourself have forged
According Google.de Bitdefender uses its own engine.
Die Virenscan-Engine von G Data sucht zusammen mit der Scan-Engine von Bitdefender nach Schadsoftware.
LPlace virus scan engine from G Data analyzed together with the scan engine Bitdefender for malicious software.
By
- Dec 30, 2012
- 4,809
A bigger question is that while so many products use bitdefender engine then why the detection rate is not the same.
As you can see bitdefender and f secure is a top with 99% detection rate.
But emsisoft is with 98%
Yet bullguard, esan, gdata, qihoo has even lower than 96%
gdata, qihoo uses multiple antivirus engine so they must be above or very near bitdefender. but thats not the case in test result.
One can also argue that test results are rigged.
one thing i am certainly sure of is avast, avira cannot have such high detection rate.
Keep in mind this is a "real world protection" test, not based solely on detection
If you look at "detection" alone the results seem more in tune:
Also, notice how Kaspersky is not at the top in this particular test!
- Sep 9, 2013
- 1,054
A bigger question is that while so many products use bitdefender engine then why the detection rate is not the same.
As you can see bitdefender and f secure is a top with 99% detection rate.
But emsisoft is with 98%
Yet bullguard, esan, gdata, qihoo has even lower than 96%
gdata, qihoo uses multiple antivirus engine so they must be above or very near bitdefender. but thats not the case in test result.
One can also argue that test results are rigged.
one thing i am certainly sure of is avast, avira cannot have such high detection rate.
i know for sure that avast does not have a high detection rate
Littlebits
Retired Staff
- May 3, 2011
- 3,893
The higher the detection rate according to AV tests, the higher the number of false positives of safe files.
The one thing I hate about an AV is detecting files that I know for sure are safe.
Ask yourself do you really need an AV with the highest detection rate?
Unless you are a user who is reckless, clicks on everything and downloads files from suspicious sources, all you need is a AV that is light on resources and low on false positives. Utilize UAC prompts (don't approve anything that you don't know for sure is safe) and never download files unless you know they are safe.
Malware has to be manually downloaded and installed by the user, watch your actions and forget about detection rate according to AV tests because it is not important. You may encounter malware that wasn't even in the testing samples and might not encounter any of the malware that was tested giving that product a high detection rate. No AV's will detect everything, it is how you decide to deal with suspicious files when you want to download or install a program.
If a user controls their own actions then Microsoft Security Essential or Windows Defender will keep them safe if they also pay attention and utilize UAC. Detection rate is just a scam to promote sales of products, their is no proof that one product will protect each individual user in the same way compared to other products.
Thanks.
The one thing I hate about an AV is detecting files that I know for sure are safe.
Ask yourself do you really need an AV with the highest detection rate?
Unless you are a user who is reckless, clicks on everything and downloads files from suspicious sources, all you need is a AV that is light on resources and low on false positives. Utilize UAC prompts (don't approve anything that you don't know for sure is safe) and never download files unless you know they are safe.
Malware has to be manually downloaded and installed by the user, watch your actions and forget about detection rate according to AV tests because it is not important. You may encounter malware that wasn't even in the testing samples and might not encounter any of the malware that was tested giving that product a high detection rate. No AV's will detect everything, it is how you decide to deal with suspicious files when you want to download or install a program.
If a user controls their own actions then Microsoft Security Essential or Windows Defender will keep them safe if they also pay attention and utilize UAC. Detection rate is just a scam to promote sales of products, their is no proof that one product will protect each individual user in the same way compared to other products.
Thanks.
- Dec 30, 2012
- 4,809
- Dec 29, 2012
- 30
Me too i never trust these tests.... But then i think the difference is how these antivirus detects malware.... Some block them during execution & some delete them as they are stored on HDD..... Many AV vendors develop generic signatures like 1 generic signature can detect many different malware having common code....
Similar threads
