Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

SeriousHoax

AV-Comparatives Real-World Protection Test Jul-Aug 2019

Recommended Posts

Here's the latest AV-Comparatives Real-World Protection Test Jul-Aug 2019: https://www.av-comparatives.org/tests/real-world-protection-test-jul-aug-2019-factsheet/

Comparison chart: https://www.av-comparatives.org/comparison/?usertype=consumer&chart_chart=chart2&chart_year=2019&chart_month=Jul-Aug&chart_sort=1&chart_zoom=2

ESET blocked 98.3% with 1 False positive. While 98.3% is not a bad result but ESET finished last in this test and likes of McAfee, Tencent finishing ahead of ESET is what bothering me the most.

Did you get a detailed result of the types of malwares ESET missed in this test? Were ESET able to detect them after executing or the execution is done in this test too?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I saw these test results the other day. Actually Eset is fairly consistent in this test series; scoring in the 98.x% range. What has happened is everyone else is scoring better lately.

9 hours ago, SeriousHoax said:

Did you get a detailed result of the types of malwares ESET missed in this test?

I also would like to know this. A while back, Eset was missing some PUA's. Don't believe that is the case anymore since they are currently quite aggressive in their PUA detection.

Another thing I am suspicious about is WD's settings on this test. With that number of FPs, it has to be running with aggressive settings which is not the default.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, itman said:

I saw these test results the other day. Actually Eset is fairly consistent in this test series; scoring in the 98.x% range. What has happened is everyone else is scoring better lately.

Yes, you are right. ESET is always around the 98% mark. A test before this one they scored 98.4% which was lower than every other (Except Total Defense). So, everyone else doing better.

2 hours ago, itman said:

I also would like to know this. A while back, Eset was missing some PUA's. Don't believe that is the case anymore since they are currently quite aggressive in their PUA detection.

I'm pretty sure too that it's not related to PUA. Eset is pretty good at detecting those. The report of the February-May 2019 test was more detailed. It showed Eset failed to detect 12 threats out of 752 but didn't mention what type of threats those were: https://www.av-comparatives.org/tests/real-world-protection-test-february-may-2019/

2 hours ago, itman said:

Another thing I am suspicious about is WD's settings on this test. With that number of FPs, it has to be running with aggressive settings which is not the default

Also, check the report of the February-May test. They categorized by prevalence of the false positive from Very low, low, medium and high and most of the WD false positives were on the group of very low and low. So, rarely an average user would face false positive issue. Maybe most of those detected false positive samples were blocked by SmartScreen. SmartScreen is mostly reputation based so it's a possibility.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only thing that bothers me is the compromise part. I know it's only 1.7%. It's still 1.7% that bypass Eset without user knowing until too late. Hope Est can be better in that area.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...