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
Video Reviews - Security and Privacy
Windows Defender Firewall Critique Part 2
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Andy Ful" data-source="post: 1102505" data-attributes="member: 32260"><p>Some readers may think that I am prejudiced against Leo's tests. So let's consider three important facts:</p><ol> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">The infection rate of tested AVs is incredibly low - typical for several days-old samples. For Kaspersky, the infection rate is close to 0. A similar effect can be seen for AV-Test samples in the non-real-world part of tests (reference set).</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">Only EXE files are tested.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">Files are executed on the system (non-web threats).</li> </ol><p>In such tests, the differences between AVs follow mainly from the completeness of the AV signatures (just like 15 years ago).</p><p>I can understand that such tests can still be useful for some people, especially when the infections commonly propagate via non-web sources. If I recall correctly, a few years ago MT members from Ukraine reported such a situation, related to sharing pirated software on USB drives. In many countries, the software is hardly available from legal sources and there are no anti-piracy regulations.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Andy Ful, post: 1102505, member: 32260"] Some readers may think that I am prejudiced against Leo's tests. So let's consider three important facts: [LIST=1] [*]The infection rate of tested AVs is incredibly low - typical for several days-old samples. For Kaspersky, the infection rate is close to 0. A similar effect can be seen for AV-Test samples in the non-real-world part of tests (reference set). [*]Only EXE files are tested. [*]Files are executed on the system (non-web threats). [/LIST] In such tests, the differences between AVs follow mainly from the completeness of the AV signatures (just like 15 years ago). I can understand that such tests can still be useful for some people, especially when the infections commonly propagate via non-web sources. If I recall correctly, a few years ago MT members from Ukraine reported such a situation, related to sharing pirated software on USB drives. In many countries, the software is hardly available from legal sources and there are no anti-piracy regulations. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Top