lock

Emsisoft and Bitdefender

Recommended Posts

If Emsisoft uses Bitdefender engine, why the detection rate is so different?

May 2017:

BitDefender: 99.7% with 1FP

Emsisoft 93.2% + 6.5% user dependent ( from your own behavior module)  with 7FP

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because EAM uses two engines and - by default - gives the user a choice of what to do with possibly iffy items?   You can configure EAM so that it always quarantines iffy files, in which case I think the results would be the same.  But the test sites tend to test how a/v and a/malware apps work in their default configuration.   99.7% (Bitdefender) is the same number as 93.2 + 6.5%.

Personally I HATE having files quarantined automatically.  It can break all sorts of other programs if files they depend on suddenly go missing.  I'm more than happy to get told there might be a problem with something and investigate it myself. 

As for FP rates, who knows.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, JeremyNicoll said:

Because EAM uses two engines and - by default - gives the user a choice of what to do with possibly iffy items?   You can configure EAM so that it always quarantines iffy files, in which case I think the results would be the same.  But the test sites tend to test how a/v and a/malware apps work in their default configuration.   99.7% (Bitdefender) is the same number as 93.2 + 6.5%.

Personally I HATE having files quarantined automatically.  It can break all sorts of other programs if files they depend on suddenly go missing.  I'm more than happy to get told there might be a problem with something and investigate it myself. 

As for FP rates, who knows.

6.5% is from behavior blocker (former Mamutu) , so 93.2 % is strictly signature based; how this can be lower than BitDefender, if relies on the same signatures?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe if BB wasn't involved, the things it's asked the user about would just have been straight detections?   I think you think that EIS uses BitDefender's engine all by itself, then uses BB all but itself.  If that were so you would expect all the files identified by BitDefender to be the same, then (maybe) more by the BB.  But I think (from stuff I've read here) that the two engines work together rather than one after the other.  I am, however, just guessing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

AV engine usually detects malicious file on-access (first action), while BB does it on-execution (second action).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/25/2017 at 6:45 AM, lock said:

If Emsisoft uses Bitdefender engine, why the detection rate is so different?

May 2017:

BitDefender: 99.7% with 1FP

Emsisoft 93.2% + 6.5% user dependent ( from your own behavior module)  with 7FP

From what I have been told, BitDefender's software has behavioral blocking as well, however instead of asking users for confirmation like EAM does they simply block things automatically. This means they appear to have a higher score on comparative testing, when in reality they don't.

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.