App Review Windows Defender vs Malware in 2021 (The PC Security Channel)

[roger_m]

Exactly, thats my point why these "tests" just make up numbers.

There's a big difference to scoring the same as other antivirus and outperforming them. I have no reason to doubt the validity of the tests for the samples used. It shows what others have said, that the difference in protection between big name antivirus is fairly insignificant. In addition, if the tests were done with more recent samples, then I'm sure there would that AhnLab would not have scored so well.

 

[EndangeredPootis]

There's a big difference to scoring the same as other antivirus and outperforming them. I have no reason to doubt the validity of the tests for the samples used. It shows what others have said, that the difference in protection between big name antivirus is fairly insignificant. In addition, if the tests were done with more recent samples, then I'm sure there would that AhnLab would not have scored so well.

So then whats the point of doing these tests if all AV's score the same? to mislead customers? are they paid by the AV companies? (latter of which is true)

 

[roger_m]

So then whats the point of doing these tests if all AV's score the same? to mislead customers?

As I said I believe the test scores provide an accurate indication of the detection rate for the samples used. Whether the samples they use, or the samples used for testing in the malware Hub here - which may be more recent, better represent malware that users are typically going to encounter in the wild, I don't know.

Also, some antivirus don't get top scores for protection, so not every AV gets the same scores.

 

[EndangeredPootis]

As I said I believe the test scores provide an accurate indication of the detection rate for the samples used. Whether the samples they use, or the samples used for testing in the malware Hub here - which may be more recent, better represent malware that users are typically going to encounter in the wild, I don't know.

Also, some antivirus don't get top scores for protection, so not every AV gets the same scores.

Theres nothing to backup any of their claims, all you can do is take their word for it.

 

[Andy Ful]

Theres nothing to backup any of their claims, all you can do is take their word for it.

You insist on the conspiracy theory. So no one can convince you about anything. We can continue this interesting conversation privately. I am curious if you believe in something.

 

[Kongo]

Theres nothing to backup any of their claims, all you can do is take their word for it.

Have to agree on that one, there is literally no indicator that the samples that are used are fresh or do properly resemble a real-world-scenario in any way. I am not saying that their tests are fake, but they just aren't transparent enough for my taste.

 

[Andy Ful]

Have to agree on that one, there is literally no indicator that the samples that are used are fresh or do properly resemble a real-world-scenario in any way. I am not saying that their tests are fake, but they just aren't transparent enough for my taste.

The AV vendors have access to the missed samples and can negotiate with the AV Lab if they think that something was done unproperly. For many years, there was no indication of unfaithfulness. There are several AV-Labs that concur on the AV testing market and there are many people involved.
In theory, it is possible to hide something unfair, but so far AV-Test, AV-Comparative, SE Labs, and MRG Effitas have a good reputation for years. Furthermore, the results of these tests are sensible and can be connected with the testing methodology and security layers applied in the AVs.

Anyway, I would wish them to participate in the discussions on MT.

 

[Kongo]

The AV vendors have access to the missed samples and can negotiate with the AV Lab if they think that something was done unproperly. For many years, there was no indication of unfaithfulness.

As I said above, I don't impute anything to anyone here. All I said is that the tests are not transparent enough in my opinion. Also, why would any AV company complain about the testing methodology when pretty much every AV scores well in those tests?

 

[Andy Ful]

Also, why would any AV company complain about the testing methodology when pretty much every AV scores well in those tests?

Several AV vendors resigned because of poor results. Some vendors (like Trend Micro) still participate in tests despite some very poor results (AV-Comparatives Malware Protection tests).

 

[Kongo]

Several AV vendors resigned because of poor results. Some vendors (like Trend Micro) still participate in tests despite some very poor results (AV-Comparatives Malware Protection tests).

I don't see any very poor results for Trend Micro tbh...
1. Test Trend Micro Apex One 14.0 für Windows 10 (212125)
2. Test Trend Micro Internet Security 17.0 für Windows 10 (211121)

Edit: I thought we are talking about AV-TEST

 

[struppigel]

Please stay on topic.

Any further conspiracy theories that AV institutes fake their numbers will be deleted.
I do work with them and so do a lot of my colleagues. I am pretty confident that we did not just pretend to work with their samples and logs the last years.

For other posts regarding testing institutes feel free to use this thread instead.

 

[koloveli]

Did Microsoft take over the Comodo AV?
Please look here:

App Review - Best Firewall for Windows (The PC Security Channel)

malwaretips.com

Believe me, most people on this thread know a lot about prevention, keyloggers, and the protection of Comodo, Keyscrambler, Zemana AntiLogger, and Spyshelter. If you are interested in discussion then you have to open a separate thread.

yes, windows defender need improve, but in detection improved...

 

[Andy Ful]

It is good that there are several AV vendors. They have to compete and make AVs better. There will be always people who will demand something more than Defender and will pay for it.

 

[roger_m]

Of course people have the right to waste their money on third party security software. It is good that there are multiple AV options, but that still does not change the fact that for the vast majority of users Microsoft Defender is sufficient.

I use a third party antivirus, and it is money very well spent. Microsoft Defender does not suit my needs, but the third party antivirus does. It is lighter, more configurable and never causes any issues.

MD is fine for many people, but not me.

 

[Cortex]

I don't consider spending a negligible amount on a third party AV to be a issue in my life - We all spend our money as we choose - But it's one thing to say MS Defender is more than enough for most users (a justifiable opinion) but another to say a user is wasting money on an alternative AV - MS Defender isn't for me & likely never will be, just my choice

 

[Andy Ful]

Defender is a good starting solution. We have democracy (mostly), so everyone can use something else, even if the only difference is a better GUI or the fact that the friend uses it too. Anyway, people deserve to get the right/objective information about Defender's pros and cons, especially when it is a default Windows AV. I try to do it in the thread: How the hell WD works on Windows Home & Pro?

Anyway, I feel that I am forced to comment on posts about Defender too often. My opinion is that in the Home environment many popular AVs can protect users on a similar level. There are some differences, but finally, most computer infections depend on users' habits and risky actions - the little differences in AV protection are much less important here.

I do not think that AVs on default settings can be good protection for happy clickers and children.

 

[forgottenuser79643]

I picked Emsisoft many years ago, for several reasons over MD. But the most important one was that I found the web interface for remote admins to be a extremely huge boon and useful for family members and acquaintances. Most of them in my social circle are not tech-savvy, hell lots of them are technologically challenged. It made it just that much easier for me to help manage the licence and AV environments for them.

For a huge portion of the users MD is fine, but for those with different needs other than the essentials than it's far from a proper choice in my personal experience. To say that it's a waste of money simply on the basis that you never had the need for other features is just ignorance to put it bluntly.

Though, In the end everything starts and ends with individual habits.

 

[Cortex]

People buy or reject cars /houses / people etc, etc based on the GUI (how it looks) often on a car simply the front grille or dashboard - Most products we buy have had much time spent on it's GUI - For example as a man a females GUI would be hugely critical but not the only aspect of her if I intend to spend the rest of my life with her - Looks count in life more than we realise

 

[Andy Ful]

People buy or reject cars /houses / people etc, etc based on the GUI (how it looks) often on a car simply the front grille or dashboard - Most products we buy have had much time spent on it's GUI - For example as a man a females GUI would be hugely critical but not the only aspect of her if I intend to spend the rest of my life with her - Looks count in life more than we realise

Ha, ha. But in the end, our wives/husbands are rarely the "top models" (for good reasons).

 

[entropism]

People buy or reject cars /houses / people etc, etc based on the GUI (how it looks) often on a car simply the front grille or dashboard - Most products we buy have had much time spent on it's GUI - For example as a man a females GUI would be hugely critical but not the only aspect of her if I intend to spend the rest of my life with her - Looks count in life more than we realise

I'm actually trying out Vipre IS, and the UI is so bad, I'm ready to ditch it immediately. It looks like something an amature coder cooked up in their spare time, and it's buggy as all hell too (visually).