AV - Test

[Damjan 12]

Why does ESET have such a poor perception (compared to the competition):

 

Real-World Protection Test July-August 2023 - Factsheet - AV-Comparatives

 

It is commendable that it has zero false positives. It just has a high throughput of malware (1.2%). ESET Internet Security was used. Would the result be better when using ESET Smart Security Premium (which uses ESET LiveGuard).

Edited September 15, 2023 by Damjan

[itman 1,801]

Below is Eset's historical performance scores on the AV-Comparatives real-time test series. It can be observed that Eset's scores on this test are fairly consistent over the years. One miss factor I am aware of is PUA's since Eset runs with default installation settings on this test and that protection is not enabled by default upon installation;

[AnthonyQ 56]

11 hours ago, itman said:

Below is Eset's historical performance scores on the AV-Comparatives real-time test series. It can be observed that Eset's scores on this test are fairly consistent over the years. One miss factor I am aware of is PUA's since Eset runs with default installation settings on this test and that protection is not enabled by default upon installation;

IMO, as a professional and well-known testing organization, AV-Comparative won’t take PUA as Malware.

[itman 1,801]

15 hours ago, AnthonyQ said:

IMO, as a professional and well-known testing organization, AV-Comparative won’t take PUA as Malware.

Correct I mis-posted;

Quote

We test all consumer products with their default settings, since surveys reveal that most home users keep their security programs at advised (default) settings. There is one exception to this rule, namely that we enable detection of potentially unwanted applications (PUA) if available. However, we do not test for PUAs, and use our own checks and analysis of samples to ensure that no verified PUA samples are counted in our test scores.

https://www.av-comparatives.org/faq/

A long discussion of this topic in this thread: https://forum.eset.com/topic/12569-question-about-avc-real-world-test/

I do know AV-C tests always contain a few samples Eset misses. Also, Eset results are better on other AV lab tests:

https://selabs.uk/reports/endpoint-security-eps-small-business-2023-q2/

https://www.mrg-effitas.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/MRG_Effitas_360_Q2_2023.pdf

https://avlab.pl/en/recent-results/

Bottom line - you can't fully evaluate an AV product effectiveness based on one AV lab test.

Edited September 16, 2023 by itman

[Damjan 12]

New test: Malware Protection Test September 2023 - AV-Comparatives

[itman 1,801]

9 minutes ago, Damjan said:

New test: Malware Protection Test September 2023 - AV-Comparatives

In an AV lab test where all but three vendor products scored 99.9% or above, one needs to ask themselves if such a test reflects current real world malware detection capability.

[cyberhash 201]

34 minutes ago, itman said:

In an AV lab test where all but three vendor products scored 99.9% or above, one needs to ask themselves if such a test reflects current real world malware detection capability.

Totally agree , historically there has never been such a narrow margin between products.

Plus there is never any real data provided as to the samples used or the complexity of them.

These reviews have never painted a clear picture of the complete experience of the products. Takes months of using anything on a daily basis to get a true feel for how they stack up.

 

[itman 1,801]

As far as the AV-C Malware Protection test series goes, the only thing I pay attention to is the On-line versus Off-Line detection scores. It is not uncommon for malware to tamper with or disable a device's network connection. Hence, a high score in Off-line detection capability is a must.