Assigned Zemana AntiMalware proved to be the best ransomware protection among globally known products

[TwinHeadedEagle]

According to MRG Effitas, a UK-based independent IT security research company, Zemana AntiMalware proved to be the best rasnomware protection and got the highest score among globally known products. The full report you can find here.

 

[Noxx]

I don't know why this independent tester didn't include WinAntiRansom. Still, VERY impressive showing by Zemana.

 

[Deleted member 2913]

Zemana, though seems good but does gives quite a few FPs. And if I am correct, it blocks files with low reputation too And this too adds to FPs.

A product with quite a few FPs %age have the chance of good detection.

Guess, FPs the reason Pandora is disabled by default in realtime protection.

Just my experience with Zemana & my opinion.

 

[Noxx]

Zemana, though seems good but does gives quite a few FPs. And if I am correct, it blocks files with low reputation too And this too adds to FPs.

A product with quite a few FPs %age have the chance of good detection.

Guess, FPs the reason Pandora is disabled by default in realtime protection.

Just my experience with Zemana & my opinion.

Meh, the only problem with false positives is the people who just quarantine stuff without actually doing research. Otherwise, I don't care about FP's. I'm more inclined to like a product if it's more aggressive, regardless if it picks up FP's. But yeah, probably why pandora is disabled by default.

 

[hjlbx]

I just knew someone would say: "Foul... foul ! Test is no fair -- because it did not include WinAntiRansom."

Ruiware will have to sponsor their own ransomware test with MRG.

 

[DardiM]

Where is Crystal Security test !?

 

[hjlbx]

Use Zemana real-time as a Windows Defender replacement on W10 would be a smart choice.

 

[Deleted member 2913]

Guess Pandora is in-house technology, right?
And they license third party engines, right?
Any other in-house protection?

Zemana did good in test.
If it did good mainly due to Pandora - Pandora is disabled by default (Guess due to FPs)
If it did good mainly due to 3rd party engines - Well "3rd party engines" not Zemana

 

[Noxx]

I just knew someone would say: "Foul... foul ! Test is no fair -- because it did not include WinAntiRansom."

Ruiware will have to sponsor their own ransomware test with MRG.

Nope, no foul, just would've been nice . In fairness, they did say globally known products, and I'm not so sure WinAntiRansom is "globally" known atm.

 

[hjlbx]

Nope, no foul, just would've been nice . In fairness, they did say globally known products, and I'm not so sure WinAntiRansom is "globally" known atm.

WinAntiRansom might out-perform -- I think so -- because it essentially behaves as an anti-executable...

But anyhow, Zemana is good product.

 

[DJ Panda]

Happy about MBARW it will be even better once incorperated into MBAM.

 

[hjlbx]

Zemana, though seems good but does gives quite a few FPs. And if I am correct, it blocks files with low reputation too And this too adds to FPs.

A product with quite a few FPs %age have the chance of good detection.

Guess, FPs the reason Pandora is disabled by default in realtime protection.

Just my experience with Zemana & my opinion.

It is outlined in the MRG report.

 

[Deleted member 2913]

It is outlined in the MRG report.

Is this a Zemana sponsored test?

 

[Ink]

Guess Pandora is in-house technology, right?
And they license third party engines, right?
Any other in-house protection?

Yes.
Possibly, but things could have changed since this post.
@TwinHeadedEagle recently posted this.

Source: Find who posted what in Mega ZAM Thread.

 

[Deleted member 2913]

Yes.
Possibly, but things could have changed since this post.
@TwinHeadedEagle recently posted this.

Source: Find who posted what in Mega ZAM Thread.

Wilders post is a year & half old. Dont know what got added/removed?

I dont understand...they use few 3rd party engines...why dont they mention 3rd party engines And why dont they list 3rd party engines in the GUI for the users to select the AVs for detection?

 

[Solarlynx]

I use Zemana AM realtime for pretty long time. Yes, Zemana AM is lite, very lite and has good detection. And yes, it unfortunately sometimes makes FP.

 

[XhenEd]

Wilders post is a year & half old. Dont know what got added/removed?

I dont understand...they use few 3rd party engines...why dont they mention 3rd party engines And why dont they list 3rd party engines in the GUI for the users to select the AVs for detection?

That has been asked multiple times. Ordinary users, like us, don't understand. But it's a corporate decision. We might see it as illogical, but they see it as logical given the corporate reality they are in (e.g. deals with those 3rd party companies).

 

[frogboy]

It would be nice to know what engines are used by ZAM, i have a lot of faith in it so it would just be nice to know what is protecting us.

 

[XhenEd]

If I remember correctly, one of the reasons why Zemana decided to hide the information about the 3rd party engines is the fact that ZAM might just become a tool of comparison. For instance, imagine a file detected by Kaspersky but not by Bitdefender, or vice versa, what could be a possible result? Debate. Word war. There would be comparison about which is the best.

Although, for me personally, I would like to know the participating 3rd party engines, too.

 

[Viking]

It would be nice to know what engines are used by ZAM, i have a lot of faith in it so it would just be nice to know what is protecting us.

avg
avira
eset
bitdefender
kaspersky
and of course zemana