Secondmineboy

AV-Comparatives Summary report 2015

Recommended Posts

I'm surprised to see that Emsisoft didn't achieve an award in the Malware Removal category. In my opinion, Emsisoft is the best product when it comes to that kind of task.

Looks like they don't include PUP in the Malware Removal test, otherwise Emsisoft would probably have bounced back. Also, it seems that a lot of Antivirus failed to remove the Jenxcus worm, while all of them failed to remove the Shutdowner trojan.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Emsisoft got bronze award on file detection? GG.

 

It seems so, Avast has to improve on Proactive which will come with Release 2 in form of a HIPS Feature and i seriously hope there will be more soon since thats a weak point of Avast right now, also Phishing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Emsisoft is good in removal, but sometimes Kaspersky is a tad better. But not on standard settings, crank it up with custom settings and you get a flippin fortress.

Kaspersky doesn't aim a lot for PUPs however. To my knowledge, only Emsisoft and ESET stays on top of it, so that's why if PUPs were included in the malware removal test, also adware, browser hijacker, etc. Emsisoft would probably have a better detection ratio in the tests. Oh well.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kaspersky doesn't aim a lot for PUPs however. To my knowledge, only Emsisoft and ESET stays on top of it, so that's why if PUPs were included in the malware removal test, also adware, browser hijacker, etc. Emsisoft would probably have a better detection ratio in the tests. Oh well.

 

You can enable to detect a higher set of Unwanted software in Kasperskys settings, you can disable trusting digitally signed files and Kaspersky

has now detection of toolbar installations, homepage changes etc. with a few settings changed its really hard for Adware to bypass Kaspersky these days :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can enable to detect a higher set of Unwanted software in Kasperskys settings, you can disable trusting digitally signed files and Kaspersky

has now detection of toolbar installations, homepage changes etc. with a few settings changed its really hard for Adware to bypass Kaspersky these days :)

Plus Trusted Application Mode on Kaspersky will put your computer lock down for unknown applications from Kaspersky database, and system watcher will prevent any applications make changes to your PC. And I think BitDefender tripping on Emsisoft. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Really i am not a fanboy. I dislike defend a product. They are companies and dont need i defend they, but for me this test are very cuestionable. I dont know what they call "real world". For me is living in a riskly enviroment where people uses pirate software, where cousins or another familiars download series, where the user installs manythings not malicious and crash the system, where someone catch a  criptolocker and no one stands by him because he scare. For me the real world is living whith people whith bad security measures, include me (Sometimes i download a serie or see a movie in questionable pages), where people stores passwords on browser or ciber cafe, where people thinks stole network, where infected usbs runs freely for the world. I see emsisoft and another security products like bitdefender. I never see bitdefender was proactive, in my experience let pass eicar test and traces only was removed whith on demand scan. Kaspersky  is more secure for me, but a litle complex to use and to see what it does in your pc. In removal i dont know whats is a really virus removal. I trust on forensic tools and scrpts like kevin does. I think too much security products only removes files but no virus traces, registry entries, etc, etc I was use bitdefender and see traces of eicar, i use avast and always be whith fear. I love norton it haves a good detection and a good protection whith sonar detection but its a litle heavy for me. I like bullguard but for me is bitdefender whith agnitum firewall, no more no less, easy and reliable. I use gdata in the past, i think an av must work like gdata scaning all on acces. I use emsifot i see is the only one who removes viruses and viruses traces, is the only one who blocks every bad web what i frequent, is the only who detect things and prevent, for me emsi haves 2 points 3 points sorry. A high detection, a agressive proactive defense and a very good perfomance. Sorry i think that test was patrocitad by anothers. I read in the comodo forum things about this test for me not are reliable. If emsi reports how much of his users be infected at year for me thats is ost relevant. Its only a opinion. Best regards

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Allow me to quote quietman7 on that.

There are several reputable labs which test the effectiveness of major anti-virus programs and security suites to include AV-Comparatives.org, Virus Bulletin Comparative Tests, AV-Test.org, NSS Labs Consumer Anti-Malware Products Group Test Report, etc.

These kinds of comparative testing results will vary depending on a variety of factors to include but not limited to who conducted the testing, what they were testing for (type of threats, attack vectors, exploits), what versions of anti-virus software was tested, what type of scanning engine was used, and the ability to clean or repair. There are no universally predefined set of standards or criteria for testing which means each test will yield different results. As such, you need to look for detailed information about how the tests were conducted, the procedures used, objectivity and data results. Read Anti-Malware Testing Standards Organization: AMTSO Fundamental Principles of Testing.

Each security vendor uses their own testing/analysis methodology to identify various types of malware so the detection results are not always the same.

Some of the testing criteria and standards may even be misleading.

...for some unknown reason...the renowned German test lab AV-TEST has quietly (there was no warning) modified its certification process. The changes mean that the certificates produced by the new rules are, to put it mildly, pretty useless for evaluating the merits of different AV products...With AV-TEST’s new certification standards, the onus is on the user to carefully investigate the actual results of each individual test…they may find that a product that blocked 99.9% of attacks has the same “certification” as a product that only blocked 55%.

Comparative testing: A bit of background for the uninitiated

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.