AV-Comparatives: Performance Test - October 2017

October 19, 2017

capture-png.170292

Details:

Chart - http://chart.av-comparatives.org/chart1.php?chart=chart4&year=2017&month=10&sort=1

https://www.av-comparatives.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/avc_per_201710_en.pdf

October 19, 2017

- efficient

- very rare false positive

- minimal memory use

- minimal notifications and disturbance

ESET :showoff:

October 19, 2017

Now we are on! My guts told me that looooong ago.... Using ESET since... forever now!

October 20, 2017

ESET has been good for a long time you really cant go wrong using eset well unless they havent fixed there anti-stealth technology other then that we are good to go.

October 20, 2017

I not a fan of these test. But i have too agree ESET has very good performance you can install it on any system made in the last 10 years and see that.It's just conman sense and no test needs to prove it.

But as far malware test

1. No one goes around infecting themselves with known malware.

2. Most no one uses the same exact setup , OS , browser , programs ,etc , so the results will vary a lot.

3. A computer savvy person that runs protection and hardens there browsers most likely would not be infected by known malware they would be more likely to get hit by a 0day that these software don't have signatures for.

4.So i think AV test are a load of crap and i never installed or used anything based on these test.

October 20, 2017

She is pixie :dance: , but why she scores so well in AV-C performance and really bad in AV-test performance (4.5/6.0 - both Windows 7 & 10).

October 20, 2017

45 minutes ago, Radpop said:

She is pixie, but why she scores so well in AV-C performance and really bad in AV-test performance (3.5/5.0 - both Windows 7 & 10).

Ive used Eset since 2014 and never been infected by a known malware or a 0day that became known, that should tell how you accurate these test are, there not by a long shot in real life ..I think vendors pay these test off too jack up there scores . Any test says and Antivirus has a 100% detection rate is a lair .. If you put all you're faith in Antivirus alone you're just setting yourself up for the next 0day .

Quote

Also akin to the claim of unbreakable software is the claim from multiple vendors that their anti-malware detection is 100% accurate. And they almost all say this detection rate has been "verified independently in test after test."

Ever wonder why these buy-once-and-never-worry-again solutions don't take over the world? It's because they're a lie. No anti-malware software is, or can be, 100% accurate. Antivirus software wasn't 100% accurate when we only had a few viruses to contend with, and today's world has tens of millions of mutating malware programs. In fact, today's malware is pretty good at changing its form. Many malicious programs use "mutation engines" coupled with the very same good encryption mentioned above. Good encryption introduces realistic randomness, and malware uses the same properties to hide itself. Plus, most malware creators run their latest creations against every available anti-malware program before they begin to propagate, and then they self-update every day. It's a neverending battle, and the bad guys are winning.

Some vendors, using general behavior-detection techniques known as heuristics and change-detecting emulation environments, have valiantly tried to up their accuracy. What they've discovered is that as you enter the upper ranges of detection, you run into the problem of false positives. As it turns out, programs that detect malware at extremely accurate rates are bad at not detecting legitimate programs as malicious. Show me a 100% accurate anti-malware program, and I'll show you a program that flags nearly everything as malicious.

Even worse, as accuracy increases, performance decreases. Some antivirus programs make their host systems so slow that they're unusable. I know users who would rather knowingly compute with active malware than run antivirus software. With tens of millions of malware programs that must be checked against hundreds of thousands of files contained on a typical computer, doing a perfectly accurate comparison would simply take too long. Anti-malware vendors are acutely aware of these sad paradoxes, and, in the end, they all make the decision to be less accurate.

Counterintuitively, being less accurate actually helps security vendors sell more of their products. I don't mean that lowered accuracy allows malware to propagate, thereby ensuring security vendors can sell more software. It's that the trade-offs of extremely accurate anti-malware detection are unacceptable to those shopping for security software.

And if you do find yourself buying the claim of 100% accuracy, just don't ask your vendor to put it in writing or ask for a refund when something slips by. They won't back the claim.

https://www.itworld.com/article/2698789/security/security-vendor-snake-oil--7-promises-that-don-t-deliver.html

This is why I don't buy Anti-Virus programs and never have none of these products has a warranty if you was too get infected you can't get a refund and buy something else .

October 20, 2017

46 minutes ago, Radpop said:

Why ESET scores so well in AV-C performance

and really bad in AV-test performance (4.5/6.0 - both Windows 7 & 10)?

Just wondering about the same...

:cheers:

October 20, 2017

I have used only free antiviruses, trials and giveaways, many of them. I think, Eset one of the lightest although it don't score in protection tests so well. I don't understand, why AV-test got Eset so slowing-down.

Av-test, Win 7 - Eset 10.1 - Aug 2017

October 20, 2017

1 hour ago, pc71520 said:

Just wondering about the same...

I thought before you said you don't use no real time at all ? So why do you wonder about such ? According to what you said before these programs are just snakeoil and just using on-demand is good enough did you change you're mind and are actuality using real time protection ? I don't take advice form people who never used or never uses something because there is no way they even know . But its not like you ever gave no one any advice no way you just cheerlead other users on. If you would had used it for yourself you would not have too wonder .

That is as lame as people who post software for hits and they never tested or use it and use something else. I'm a grown man I don't need some one too test the software I use for me. I do my own testing .

As far as Virus and Malware I been using real-time on windows for almost 16 years .it's not rocket science

1. If a antivirus has too many false positives I get rid of it.

2. If a antivirus preforms poorly and causes my browser too not work right and programs i get rid of it.

3. If it lets known malware or virus slip by I get rid of it.

4. I been using NOD32 since 2014 and it satisfy all of the above for me.

October 21, 2017

On 10/20/2017 at 5:49 PM, Radpop said:

I have used only free antiviruses, trials and giveaways, many of them. I think, Eset one of the lightest although it don't score in protection tests so well. I don't understand, why AV-test got Eset so slowing-down.

Av-test, Win 7 - Eset 10.1 - Aug 2017

I agree with AV-tests

Don`t know why you are so surprised , for me ESET is havier than Kaspersky in the last two years - that`s one of the reasons why I use KIS2018 and not ESET Av , even though is more easy to find keys for ESET .

October 21, 2017

13 minutes ago, AlienForce1 said:

ESET is havier than Kaspersky in the last two years

:huh:

October 21, 2017

34 minutes ago, BALTAGY said:

lol fanboyism is a big problem on the internet . People that don't even use stuff put down programs because they use something else to pet there own egos . It's like what I use is better than what you use with out really saying it with no real proof, just some test in a lab not real life . contempt prior too investigation is another word for it. I don't really put down software but you too have sell me on why i should use if it cost money lol. And i never seen no evidence in these test selling me on anything, they change like the wind and if you installed software based on them you would have a new av every 30 days or so lol.

October 21, 2017

On 20/10/2017 at 5:55 PM, steven36 said:

I thought before you said you don't use no real time at all ? So why do you wonder about such ? According to what you said before these programs are just snakeoil and just using on-demand is good enough did you change you're mind and are actuality using real time protection ? I don't take advice form people who never used or never uses something because there is no way they even know . But its not like you ever gave no one any advice no way you just cheerlead other users on. If you would had used it for yourself you would not have too wonder .

Once more (I am Not surprised... :rolleyes: ),

not only you Failed to Understand,

but you also drew your irrelevant conclusions (as usual):

IF I use an AV (or NOT) has Nothing to do with

the different Performance Test Results (posted by AV-Comparatives and AV-Test).

And member @Radpop made the remark in the First place; not me!

But I did Not see you attacking on him!

Not Fair at all! :thumbsdown:

On 20/10/2017 at 5:55 PM, steven36 said:

I don't need some one too test the software I use for me. I do my own testing.

Since you know better than Andreas Clementi and Andreas Marx... :rolleyes:

Feel free to Share your Testing Methodology/Results.

Where can I find them?

:rolleyes:

On 20/10/2017 at 5:55 PM, steven36 said:

I'm a grown man

Sure... :rolleyes:

I will bypass the rest of your rude comments,

as there is No Need to repeat what has already been posted by others

who have also experienced your... :thumbsdown: attitude:

On 12/10/2017 at 9:24 PM, byntf said:

Instead spending the entire time you are awake trolling every post on nsane (or copy-pasting crap from other sites onto nsane),

why not get out of mommy's house, get a job, learn to deal with real people instead of a computer, and Get A Real Life?

And try learning grammar, spelling, and some manners while you're at it

October 21, 2017

Yes, All Views are wholesome fun.

October 21, 2017

On 10/19/2017 at 6:08 PM, VIKTOR PAVEL said:

- efficient

- very rare false positive

- minimal memory use

- minimal notifications and disturbance

ESET

I wholeheartedly concur! I bought my first PC 11 years ago. After the 90 day Mcafee trial ended I went for a Nod 32 and Zone Alarm combo. To later go for the whole Eset suite.

Never found a reason to be dissastified Anyways, to each his own. I don't need those performance tests

October 21, 2017

On 10/19/2017 at 11:08 PM, VIKTOR PAVEL said:

- efficient

- very rare false positive

- minimal memory use

- minimal notifications and disturbance

ESET

is this just for info : above post is base on my own experience - used since XP days

i am not remember when i have use test kaspersky but i remember it is was give too much false positive and heavy on system so i am have quicly remove it

may be it is improve in recent versions but i am not go test it again - i am already satisfy by ESET

not any one or not any comparative tell me this - only my experience has have confirm to me this

never trust comparative & products aficionados - always trust your own experience